Socialism vs Consecration
Posted: April 24th, 2019, 11:23 am
From my book, Millennial Mormon, found here... https://www.amazon.com/Millennial-Mormo ... way&sr=8-4
In addition to art, the Modernism movement resulted in new ideas about economics, known as the isms today- communism, socialism, fascism, and capitalism. Democratic socialism is the new popular branding for egalitarian collectivism or Postmodern Neo-Marxist economics. I suppose we could lump most forms of collectivism into the Marxism ideological basket, such as communism and socialism. Democratic socialism could be put in this basket in most cases. Though if democratic socialism is based around the Nordic Model, depending on that person's extrapolated thesis of those collectivist ideas, it might be more likened to the form of our mixed market economy, already present in the United States today.
Our Constitutionally based mixed market economy, is in reality diametrically opposed to the force, coercion, and tortuous mandates of Marxist collectivism, even if the person advocating for democratic socialism is oblivious to this glaring fact. So we have a dilemma in semantics, and the exact meaning of a person's words can be difficult to parse, especially when they are poorly educated in the historic realities of Marxism realized. This is the polysemy dilemma of human speech, and understanding what a person actually wants or means, needs to be investigated deeper. We have done a poor job articulating to the youth of the church, why Marxism is so evil, and I will show you why it is opposed to the true nature of the gospel, and the economic model set forth by revelation.
First, I want you to realize a truth of the gospel. Private, or personal property rights, is a cornerstone of it, found in the Decalogue. Several commandments dealt with respecting people's private property. Thou shalt not steal, or covet. Also from scripture, “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it,” Deuteronomy 19:14. Here we learn that the Lord considers moving a landmark, or boundary stone for someone's private land, a serious violation. It is also critical to understand the importance of stewardship to the Lord, and recognizing that we are simply temporary keepers of these Earthly things. Property could be considered actual land, or other forms of wealth. Bear these things in mind for this section; property rights, and stewardship.
Socialism is controlling the means of production, ownership, and oversight of businesses, solely in the hands of the government, to allegedly create a classless society, and the disintegration of private property rights. Wages are paid to workers, who have some autonomy on how they spend their money, which is highly taxed. As opposed to a theoretical communist state, which would be absent of money and wages entirely. All things would technically be owned by everyone; the notion of private property is completely removed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” says Karl Marx. This sounds very similar to, “...appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs,” D&C 51:3.
This should confuse the reader, and make them wonder. This entire book is designed to make you think as a nonconformist afterall. Communism identifies itself as Dialectical Materialism. It argues that through various iterations of economy, from the original barters, to the serfs of Feudalistic Europe, to the proletariat of capitalism, these have been failed attempts to justify exploitation of the worker. It argues that a revolution must occur, opposite to the mild incremental, legislative approach of socialism, in providing egalitarian relief to the poor. It therefore justifies violent uprisings, killings of millions, and a complete abandonment of traditional morals, which it attributes as subliminal messaging from the hegemony of antiquity. The Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, become just an example of the phallogocentric dogmatic history of the Judeo-Christian world, which communism attempts to destroy, in its effort to create a godless utopia. This is why at the advent of communist uprisings around the world, the church responded by saying in a First Presidency statement circa 1936, “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; Communism involves forceful despoliation and confiscation, the United Order voluntary consecration and sacrifice.”
All of this is based around the Marxist philosophy, that capitalism creates a rich upper class, that become the masters over everyone else. The so-called, bourgeoisie, or business owners, (today would be known as the billionaires, oligarchical media tycoons, the technocrat sultans of Silicon valley, business conglomerate CEOs, or one percenters). Bourgeoisie, is derived from a French term, describing those who lived in the borough of the newly formed cities during the Renaissance era. Instead of the peasants, who lived in the rural areas, called a proletariat by Karl Marx. This peasant, working class, or laborer, is one of the two classes of the social system described by Marx, in capitalism.
Nazi Germany was a socialist power. They were primarily an ethno-nationalist, fascist state, which practiced socialism economically. They would allow business owners to operate, but the state told the business owners what to produce, how to produce it, what wages to pay, and how much profits could be taken. The Nazis were also attempting to create what Hitler termed the third reich, or third realm; the first being the Holy Roman empire, and the second being the German empire. The Nazis were taking over Europe swiftly.
The USSR and Nazi Germany both entered a phase of ruthless expansionism, with lust for power at this time. Although once holding secret non-aggression pacts, both nations eventually were at odds, as one another annexed land, and invaded closer and closer to each others borders. Nazi Germany eventually went to bloody war against the USSR, which is probably the main reason Hitler was defeated in WWII. Being destroyed by the merciless onslaught of endless bodies being thrown at them by Stalin, who sacrificed over 20 million men to do so. The pile of dead bodies from the last century alone should be enough to scare anyone away from surrendering liberty to an all powerful state, but it hasn't. The question becomes, why is collectivism so popular, and more radical communist Marxism constantly pushed for, even by universities in America?
The Communist Manifesto, and egalitarian proposition, is appealing because it addresses a real phenomenon found amongst capitalist nations. The concentration of wealth amongst the few. This is undeniably true. The rich become richer in capitalism, but the poor also become richer, which is something Marx didn’t realize. The poor in America for example, have a much higher quality of life, than the poor in China.
There are also some very rich people in communist China, as well as Cuba, and Venezuela, which is against their ethos and mantra supposedly, though not in practice. This demonstrates the kleptocratic nature inherently evident in any iteration of centralised government. The children of these rich, totalitarian leaders, often travel the world in luxury, go to the finest universities and dinner parties, spend money on extravagant clothing, and plastic surgery, as their people back home starve. The rich kids of communism, as they have been dubbed, post many picture to Instagram showing off their wealth to the world, and their bodies. A few who have done this are Tony Castro, grandson of Fidel Castro of Cuba, and Rosines Chavez, daughter of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
This reminds me of the utopian experiments that were attempted with rodents, by John B. Calhoun. In one very famous experiment, Calhoun built a structure that could house as many as 3,840 mice. He introduced four pairs of mice on day 1, and their population doubled, roughly every 50 days. Aberrations in behavior began to happen as more mice were born, in this utopia, which had ample nesting space, food, and water. Females began rejecting their babies, before they were fully weaned. Males began to lazily guard their territory. Societal collapse eventually occurred on day 600, when the population was only around 2,200. This was the last time the colony produced any viable offspring. Some of the mice even secluded themselves in nests, guarded by males, or bodyguards. These recluses would sit in their nests, groom themselves all day long, eat, drink, and sleep. They were labeled as the “beautiful ones”, who failed to understand proper breeding also.
So it becomes clear that even when these Marxist experiments are enacted, which are supposed to protect the poor from a rich upper class of tyrants developing, the same result occurs, but the poor are in a weaker and more vulnerable position to the powerful, tyrannical state. Yet it is the promise of equality, and the lie of it, that attract people to want such a system in the first place. But equality never comes, it is always an illusion, with an autocrat at the head, or a hegemony of central power authorized in a small body of people. Rendering the lowly worker voiceless. There is always an upper echelon overseeing the masses, under the barrel of a gun, and the end of the jackboot, in these Marxist manifestations.
This is something that Vilfredo Pareto recognized, as he observed 80% of the land was owned by the upper 20% of society. A synchronicity we observed in hypergamy. Described today as the Pareto principle, which recognizes there will always be wealth accumulation of a few in every economic system. Whether through the freedom of economic exchange in capitalism, the machinations of government insiders in socialism, by nepotism in communism, and by hook or crook in all systems, regardless of any egalitarian promises or equality of outcome envisioned. People will always find a way to have more than others, by hard work, cunning, crime, theft, or pure genius.
The United States is a mixed market economy, neither truly capitalist, or socialist. Don't bother attempting to fool yourself into thinking the United States is a system of laissez faire capitalism, with our mountainous litany of regulation. We practice socialism as we can see clearly with our retirement system, education system, most of our agricultural system, even our defense system could be labeled as socialist. Yet, we often hearing the bleating that we need more socialism in America, and that will save the day. Is our grade school education system the envy of the world? Are the TSA, Amtrak, and the USPS, examples of masterfully running companies managed by genius tacticians?
We have many examples of marxist countries, that aren’t doing so well. We also need to look briefly at what it took to set up those countries. Let's look at the Russian Revolution, which took place under the hand of Vladimir Lenin. He rose to power as Tsar Nicholas II, of the Romanov family, along with his young children and wife, were shot and bayoneted to death. Following their murders, the Bolsheviks, the majority socialist party at the time, was muscled into power with a group of thugs Lenin called his Red Guards, part of vanguardism, or subterfuge, of imperialist Russia after WWI.
After the civil war between the Red and White army, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was formed in 1922. The secret police, known as the Cheka, in its first iteration, had been running for many years prior. They began sending political opponents to their massive gulag system over time. This one party state, did not allow criticism of any kind. Although it was supposedly a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, it became a dictatorship ran by Lenin himself, who became like the king and god of Russia.
For a full account of the massive gulag death factory, The Gulag Archipelago, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, needs to be studied. Of course the secret police began arresting the most intelligent opponents first, it also executed religious leaders, and anyone who dared say anything negative against the state. There was no freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of thought. It is estimated that anywhere from 20-50 million people were killed in these gulags. In China's communist revolution, the numbers are estimated to be as high as 100 million. The blood spilled at the promise of making everyone economically equal has been the most sadistic lie in the history of the modern world.
So for those wishing we abandoned capitalism altogether, when we are already a mixed market economy, and become a fully fledged marxist state, I question at what cost? Should be go toss 100 million Americans to death in gulags, and execute anyone who is religious, educated, or whispers that that is a bad idea? Because that has been the result we have seen time and time again with these revolutions. Only to create a ruling elite, upper class, like the Leninists of Russia, Chavistas loyalists of Venezuela, or communist party of in North Korea led by the Kim dynasty. Even Chairman Xi Jinping, the Communist party leader of China, who allegedly only makes a salary around $20,000 a year, has a family fortune worth hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a Bloomberg report, though don’t worry, he said he’s going to crack down on political corruption.
Sweden is often named as a goal for democratic socialist to follow in America. But they are a mixed economy, just like the United States. Their nation once owned the vodka company, Absolut, but it was sold to a private French investment group in 2008. Capitalism is alive and well in Sweden. Their education system does pay for a university level education, nationalized healthcare, child day care, and a few other welfare programs different from the U.S. Their personal income tax rate is around 62% however, and they have a Value Added Tax, which is a consumption tax somewhat similar to sales tax, that is 25%. Currently they are sitting at a 6.7% unemployment rate, compared to the U.S. at 3.9%. I don’t know if you could objectively say either system is better, when you compare both countries apples to apples, because our nations are very different from one another.
Sweden practices an economic system, often called the Nordic model. The Nordic model is a heavily developed social welfare state, which practices free market capitalism. The Nordic model economy, isn’t too different from our own mixed market economy truthfully. According the the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. has an economic freedom score of 76.8, with the higher number being a more free economy for operating businesses. The highest rated country on their list is Hong Kong, at 90.2. Most of the Nordic countries have similar scores to the U.S., Denmark, 76.7, Sweden, 75.2, Finland, 74.9, and Norway, 73.0. Traditionally Marxist countries have the following score, Russia, 58.9, China, 58.4, Cuba, 27.8, Venezuela, 25.9, and North Korea, the lowest rated country of all, at 5.9. So these Nordic countries are much more free market capitalist, than many people realize.
The main issue people have it seems, is they want to have compassion for the poor, with an egalitarian spirit, and are looking for ways and ideas to do this. Universal health care, and a college level education are ideas constantly being floated around. These things aren’t free however, and when we have political hate and apathy for everyone unlike ourselves, it becomes clear that people really wouldn’t give two cents to any of these problems being solved. Is a bleeding heart liberal going to give 62% of their income, to the red, MAGA hat wearing children's college fund, who they hate with a vengeance and want to punch in the face? Or is the Anarcho-capitalist willing to give half their income to some Syrian refugee? Probably not. I am more of a civic nationalist myself, who believes in a mixed economy, like we currently have. Is there a better system, than all of this political drivel that we are drowning in?
As members of the church, we have another system. The system we find in the Bible, and when the church was restored by the Prophet Joseph Smith, was the Law of Consecration. What is it, and how does it work? First of all, it is a system that doesn’t take what belongs to you, it respects your property. Everyone works together under a united goal, while retaining personal property rights, and recognizing the Pareto principle. It is what Jesus describes in the New Testament, as one who magnifies their talents. It is the economy of Heaven. I will take this portion directly from another book of mine, Celestialization & Apotheosis Volume IX: Modern Musings on Mormon Doctrine, since I already wrote a detailed description of it. Here is that excerpt:
“The Law of Consecration is a way of communal living, in which all things are given to the Lord, even our wives and children. It is the acknowledgement that his hand is in all things, and the realization that we are completely dependent upon him, even for the very air we breath, thus all things are truly his, even every speck of tissue in our body. It is not a system of wealth redistribution. It is a system of common ownership, yet is not a system where people must have all things held equally, only commonly with the Lord. There are those who may be richer than others who both live under the Law of Consecration. Suppose for a moment if you will, that the church implemented a wealth redistribution system today, where all members wealth was distributed 100% equally to all members that very day. By the end of the day there would already be those who had more than others. Why? Because some people make more money, know how to invest better, or have talents that enable them to acquire more, in tactful, completely legal ways. Thus, no guarantee is made of an equal outcome to those who follow the Law of Consecration. It is not a system of wealth redistribution at all.
You also aren’t stripped of your property rights, or ownership of goods when you live the Law of Consecration, or your spouse or children for that matter. Yet, it is an acknowledgement that you are willing to live under a united effort; to pool your efforts and resources together, to create a better station in life for yourself, and your fellow men and women who are also living under the covenants of consecration, where all excess is placed in a joint fund. This joint fund, is a replete bank, which can then be used further for the betterment of this community. You may give your deed to the church, and say, “Do with my house and belongings as you will, Lord.” This type of system was implemented under the United Order in the early days of the church. Yet, under this system, the most common person a house that was deeded to the Church would go, would be to the original owner themselves. Perhaps, if some single couple with no children wished of their own accord, then perhaps their larger home may have been given to a larger, poor family, but this system wasn’t designed to rob people, to give to others, like Robin Hood. It was about free will, and demonstrating that we are indeed willing, to give all that we have to the Lord, if and when necessary. It doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes.
Also, under this system, if you wish to leave it, you can, without consequence. You aren’t bullied, harassed, or ostracized for doing so. Try leaving a communist governments mandates, and see what happens. Alternatively, if you would go to the United Order, and say you wish to have all your property deeded back to you, they would do it, and without retribution. They can’t deny you a right to your own materials, which would be contrary to the nature of Heaven, to rob someone. So the biggest impression that must be made upon our minds with Consecration, is the fact that the system operates on two guiding principles, stewardship, and free will.
If one man is particularly successful at running a manufacturing plant for example, they might have an entire factory under their stewardship, paid for and given to them according to the United Order. This factory would likely be bought and or financed, from the collective funds, found in the replete bank, or joint fund belonging to the community. This might seem unfair to some, since all things are held commonly. It is true, all have a right to ask to use something, since all have joined this united collective, but not all have a right to the stewardship of all things. So if this successful man can run the factory better than others, and make lots of goods, or money for the community, it is better that they have stewardship over it and run it on behalf of the community, perhaps even be paid handsomely for their increased efforts and accomplishments. This is the way Heaven operates.
Likewise, if one farmer is particularly apt at farming then another, than they should have larger plots of land with which to farm. In both cases the community is blessed with larger rewards, by those who are particularly gifted with increasing those things they have stewardship over. The community has more goods and services, and more food from crops, because of this communal living. The excess then can be placed in the joint fund, and more property, goods, or buildings could be acquired, to further the success of the community and grow their economic outlook more and more.
The farmer may have more tools, and equipment, and the manufacturer may have more employees to look after under their stewardship, with an expensive building. Yet these stations they are given ultimately bless the community better, than if these positions, land, buildings, or stewardships were handed to those wholly unprepared, incompetent, or those who wantonly disregarding hard work, and would squander these things away without care, causing a detriment. Even though the person who manages this manufacturing place may have more placed under their stewardship, considering all things are technically deeded to the Lord, all own nothing, and they are simply the ones overseeing the stewardship of these items temporarily.
If a person owns a car or tool, and someone else would like to use it under the Law of Consecration, they have a right to ask to use it, since all things are held in common. Yet the person may be requested to pay a fee, or even be denied the use of the item. Because the item is under the stewardship of another, who is in charge of its ultimate care and use. If the person freely gives it to them, then there is no payment required, yet they have the right to request payment, or even deny use of that item if they wish. Perhaps for example, they know that person is reckless, or careless with a particular item, and they do not wish it to be destroyed, which would negatively impact the success of the community. Perhaps the person has destroyed two chainsaws the community owned, and now wants to borrow another. It would be better to deny the person that item, than allow them to destroy it. In such a case, help for that person who need to be rendered to see their task is completed, somehow. And that is what consecration is, love and compassion for one another, while also practicing practical economic measures to follow, that benefit the community as a whole.
I think it becomes clear the way in which Heaven operates when we understand how consecration works. We are given a stewardship, to increase for the success of the community. Some are made the watchmen over larger gardens than others. Some are given more talents, to increase. This system is a joint exercise in progressing the communities success. All are joint heirs in this success, or losses. When we understand what it means to truly live the Law of Consecration, we can better understand what it means to be a joint heir with Christ. I wish every saint understood this concept in great depths. If I have failed to describe it perfectly, then I apologize, considering it is such a crucial thing to understand.”
In addition to art, the Modernism movement resulted in new ideas about economics, known as the isms today- communism, socialism, fascism, and capitalism. Democratic socialism is the new popular branding for egalitarian collectivism or Postmodern Neo-Marxist economics. I suppose we could lump most forms of collectivism into the Marxism ideological basket, such as communism and socialism. Democratic socialism could be put in this basket in most cases. Though if democratic socialism is based around the Nordic Model, depending on that person's extrapolated thesis of those collectivist ideas, it might be more likened to the form of our mixed market economy, already present in the United States today.
Our Constitutionally based mixed market economy, is in reality diametrically opposed to the force, coercion, and tortuous mandates of Marxist collectivism, even if the person advocating for democratic socialism is oblivious to this glaring fact. So we have a dilemma in semantics, and the exact meaning of a person's words can be difficult to parse, especially when they are poorly educated in the historic realities of Marxism realized. This is the polysemy dilemma of human speech, and understanding what a person actually wants or means, needs to be investigated deeper. We have done a poor job articulating to the youth of the church, why Marxism is so evil, and I will show you why it is opposed to the true nature of the gospel, and the economic model set forth by revelation.
First, I want you to realize a truth of the gospel. Private, or personal property rights, is a cornerstone of it, found in the Decalogue. Several commandments dealt with respecting people's private property. Thou shalt not steal, or covet. Also from scripture, “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it,” Deuteronomy 19:14. Here we learn that the Lord considers moving a landmark, or boundary stone for someone's private land, a serious violation. It is also critical to understand the importance of stewardship to the Lord, and recognizing that we are simply temporary keepers of these Earthly things. Property could be considered actual land, or other forms of wealth. Bear these things in mind for this section; property rights, and stewardship.
Socialism is controlling the means of production, ownership, and oversight of businesses, solely in the hands of the government, to allegedly create a classless society, and the disintegration of private property rights. Wages are paid to workers, who have some autonomy on how they spend their money, which is highly taxed. As opposed to a theoretical communist state, which would be absent of money and wages entirely. All things would technically be owned by everyone; the notion of private property is completely removed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” says Karl Marx. This sounds very similar to, “...appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs,” D&C 51:3.
This should confuse the reader, and make them wonder. This entire book is designed to make you think as a nonconformist afterall. Communism identifies itself as Dialectical Materialism. It argues that through various iterations of economy, from the original barters, to the serfs of Feudalistic Europe, to the proletariat of capitalism, these have been failed attempts to justify exploitation of the worker. It argues that a revolution must occur, opposite to the mild incremental, legislative approach of socialism, in providing egalitarian relief to the poor. It therefore justifies violent uprisings, killings of millions, and a complete abandonment of traditional morals, which it attributes as subliminal messaging from the hegemony of antiquity. The Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, become just an example of the phallogocentric dogmatic history of the Judeo-Christian world, which communism attempts to destroy, in its effort to create a godless utopia. This is why at the advent of communist uprisings around the world, the church responded by saying in a First Presidency statement circa 1936, “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; Communism involves forceful despoliation and confiscation, the United Order voluntary consecration and sacrifice.”
All of this is based around the Marxist philosophy, that capitalism creates a rich upper class, that become the masters over everyone else. The so-called, bourgeoisie, or business owners, (today would be known as the billionaires, oligarchical media tycoons, the technocrat sultans of Silicon valley, business conglomerate CEOs, or one percenters). Bourgeoisie, is derived from a French term, describing those who lived in the borough of the newly formed cities during the Renaissance era. Instead of the peasants, who lived in the rural areas, called a proletariat by Karl Marx. This peasant, working class, or laborer, is one of the two classes of the social system described by Marx, in capitalism.
Nazi Germany was a socialist power. They were primarily an ethno-nationalist, fascist state, which practiced socialism economically. They would allow business owners to operate, but the state told the business owners what to produce, how to produce it, what wages to pay, and how much profits could be taken. The Nazis were also attempting to create what Hitler termed the third reich, or third realm; the first being the Holy Roman empire, and the second being the German empire. The Nazis were taking over Europe swiftly.
The USSR and Nazi Germany both entered a phase of ruthless expansionism, with lust for power at this time. Although once holding secret non-aggression pacts, both nations eventually were at odds, as one another annexed land, and invaded closer and closer to each others borders. Nazi Germany eventually went to bloody war against the USSR, which is probably the main reason Hitler was defeated in WWII. Being destroyed by the merciless onslaught of endless bodies being thrown at them by Stalin, who sacrificed over 20 million men to do so. The pile of dead bodies from the last century alone should be enough to scare anyone away from surrendering liberty to an all powerful state, but it hasn't. The question becomes, why is collectivism so popular, and more radical communist Marxism constantly pushed for, even by universities in America?
The Communist Manifesto, and egalitarian proposition, is appealing because it addresses a real phenomenon found amongst capitalist nations. The concentration of wealth amongst the few. This is undeniably true. The rich become richer in capitalism, but the poor also become richer, which is something Marx didn’t realize. The poor in America for example, have a much higher quality of life, than the poor in China.
There are also some very rich people in communist China, as well as Cuba, and Venezuela, which is against their ethos and mantra supposedly, though not in practice. This demonstrates the kleptocratic nature inherently evident in any iteration of centralised government. The children of these rich, totalitarian leaders, often travel the world in luxury, go to the finest universities and dinner parties, spend money on extravagant clothing, and plastic surgery, as their people back home starve. The rich kids of communism, as they have been dubbed, post many picture to Instagram showing off their wealth to the world, and their bodies. A few who have done this are Tony Castro, grandson of Fidel Castro of Cuba, and Rosines Chavez, daughter of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
This reminds me of the utopian experiments that were attempted with rodents, by John B. Calhoun. In one very famous experiment, Calhoun built a structure that could house as many as 3,840 mice. He introduced four pairs of mice on day 1, and their population doubled, roughly every 50 days. Aberrations in behavior began to happen as more mice were born, in this utopia, which had ample nesting space, food, and water. Females began rejecting their babies, before they were fully weaned. Males began to lazily guard their territory. Societal collapse eventually occurred on day 600, when the population was only around 2,200. This was the last time the colony produced any viable offspring. Some of the mice even secluded themselves in nests, guarded by males, or bodyguards. These recluses would sit in their nests, groom themselves all day long, eat, drink, and sleep. They were labeled as the “beautiful ones”, who failed to understand proper breeding also.
So it becomes clear that even when these Marxist experiments are enacted, which are supposed to protect the poor from a rich upper class of tyrants developing, the same result occurs, but the poor are in a weaker and more vulnerable position to the powerful, tyrannical state. Yet it is the promise of equality, and the lie of it, that attract people to want such a system in the first place. But equality never comes, it is always an illusion, with an autocrat at the head, or a hegemony of central power authorized in a small body of people. Rendering the lowly worker voiceless. There is always an upper echelon overseeing the masses, under the barrel of a gun, and the end of the jackboot, in these Marxist manifestations.
This is something that Vilfredo Pareto recognized, as he observed 80% of the land was owned by the upper 20% of society. A synchronicity we observed in hypergamy. Described today as the Pareto principle, which recognizes there will always be wealth accumulation of a few in every economic system. Whether through the freedom of economic exchange in capitalism, the machinations of government insiders in socialism, by nepotism in communism, and by hook or crook in all systems, regardless of any egalitarian promises or equality of outcome envisioned. People will always find a way to have more than others, by hard work, cunning, crime, theft, or pure genius.
The United States is a mixed market economy, neither truly capitalist, or socialist. Don't bother attempting to fool yourself into thinking the United States is a system of laissez faire capitalism, with our mountainous litany of regulation. We practice socialism as we can see clearly with our retirement system, education system, most of our agricultural system, even our defense system could be labeled as socialist. Yet, we often hearing the bleating that we need more socialism in America, and that will save the day. Is our grade school education system the envy of the world? Are the TSA, Amtrak, and the USPS, examples of masterfully running companies managed by genius tacticians?
We have many examples of marxist countries, that aren’t doing so well. We also need to look briefly at what it took to set up those countries. Let's look at the Russian Revolution, which took place under the hand of Vladimir Lenin. He rose to power as Tsar Nicholas II, of the Romanov family, along with his young children and wife, were shot and bayoneted to death. Following their murders, the Bolsheviks, the majority socialist party at the time, was muscled into power with a group of thugs Lenin called his Red Guards, part of vanguardism, or subterfuge, of imperialist Russia after WWI.
After the civil war between the Red and White army, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was formed in 1922. The secret police, known as the Cheka, in its first iteration, had been running for many years prior. They began sending political opponents to their massive gulag system over time. This one party state, did not allow criticism of any kind. Although it was supposedly a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, it became a dictatorship ran by Lenin himself, who became like the king and god of Russia.
For a full account of the massive gulag death factory, The Gulag Archipelago, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, needs to be studied. Of course the secret police began arresting the most intelligent opponents first, it also executed religious leaders, and anyone who dared say anything negative against the state. There was no freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of thought. It is estimated that anywhere from 20-50 million people were killed in these gulags. In China's communist revolution, the numbers are estimated to be as high as 100 million. The blood spilled at the promise of making everyone economically equal has been the most sadistic lie in the history of the modern world.
So for those wishing we abandoned capitalism altogether, when we are already a mixed market economy, and become a fully fledged marxist state, I question at what cost? Should be go toss 100 million Americans to death in gulags, and execute anyone who is religious, educated, or whispers that that is a bad idea? Because that has been the result we have seen time and time again with these revolutions. Only to create a ruling elite, upper class, like the Leninists of Russia, Chavistas loyalists of Venezuela, or communist party of in North Korea led by the Kim dynasty. Even Chairman Xi Jinping, the Communist party leader of China, who allegedly only makes a salary around $20,000 a year, has a family fortune worth hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a Bloomberg report, though don’t worry, he said he’s going to crack down on political corruption.
Sweden is often named as a goal for democratic socialist to follow in America. But they are a mixed economy, just like the United States. Their nation once owned the vodka company, Absolut, but it was sold to a private French investment group in 2008. Capitalism is alive and well in Sweden. Their education system does pay for a university level education, nationalized healthcare, child day care, and a few other welfare programs different from the U.S. Their personal income tax rate is around 62% however, and they have a Value Added Tax, which is a consumption tax somewhat similar to sales tax, that is 25%. Currently they are sitting at a 6.7% unemployment rate, compared to the U.S. at 3.9%. I don’t know if you could objectively say either system is better, when you compare both countries apples to apples, because our nations are very different from one another.
Sweden practices an economic system, often called the Nordic model. The Nordic model is a heavily developed social welfare state, which practices free market capitalism. The Nordic model economy, isn’t too different from our own mixed market economy truthfully. According the the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. has an economic freedom score of 76.8, with the higher number being a more free economy for operating businesses. The highest rated country on their list is Hong Kong, at 90.2. Most of the Nordic countries have similar scores to the U.S., Denmark, 76.7, Sweden, 75.2, Finland, 74.9, and Norway, 73.0. Traditionally Marxist countries have the following score, Russia, 58.9, China, 58.4, Cuba, 27.8, Venezuela, 25.9, and North Korea, the lowest rated country of all, at 5.9. So these Nordic countries are much more free market capitalist, than many people realize.
The main issue people have it seems, is they want to have compassion for the poor, with an egalitarian spirit, and are looking for ways and ideas to do this. Universal health care, and a college level education are ideas constantly being floated around. These things aren’t free however, and when we have political hate and apathy for everyone unlike ourselves, it becomes clear that people really wouldn’t give two cents to any of these problems being solved. Is a bleeding heart liberal going to give 62% of their income, to the red, MAGA hat wearing children's college fund, who they hate with a vengeance and want to punch in the face? Or is the Anarcho-capitalist willing to give half their income to some Syrian refugee? Probably not. I am more of a civic nationalist myself, who believes in a mixed economy, like we currently have. Is there a better system, than all of this political drivel that we are drowning in?
As members of the church, we have another system. The system we find in the Bible, and when the church was restored by the Prophet Joseph Smith, was the Law of Consecration. What is it, and how does it work? First of all, it is a system that doesn’t take what belongs to you, it respects your property. Everyone works together under a united goal, while retaining personal property rights, and recognizing the Pareto principle. It is what Jesus describes in the New Testament, as one who magnifies their talents. It is the economy of Heaven. I will take this portion directly from another book of mine, Celestialization & Apotheosis Volume IX: Modern Musings on Mormon Doctrine, since I already wrote a detailed description of it. Here is that excerpt:
“The Law of Consecration is a way of communal living, in which all things are given to the Lord, even our wives and children. It is the acknowledgement that his hand is in all things, and the realization that we are completely dependent upon him, even for the very air we breath, thus all things are truly his, even every speck of tissue in our body. It is not a system of wealth redistribution. It is a system of common ownership, yet is not a system where people must have all things held equally, only commonly with the Lord. There are those who may be richer than others who both live under the Law of Consecration. Suppose for a moment if you will, that the church implemented a wealth redistribution system today, where all members wealth was distributed 100% equally to all members that very day. By the end of the day there would already be those who had more than others. Why? Because some people make more money, know how to invest better, or have talents that enable them to acquire more, in tactful, completely legal ways. Thus, no guarantee is made of an equal outcome to those who follow the Law of Consecration. It is not a system of wealth redistribution at all.
You also aren’t stripped of your property rights, or ownership of goods when you live the Law of Consecration, or your spouse or children for that matter. Yet, it is an acknowledgement that you are willing to live under a united effort; to pool your efforts and resources together, to create a better station in life for yourself, and your fellow men and women who are also living under the covenants of consecration, where all excess is placed in a joint fund. This joint fund, is a replete bank, which can then be used further for the betterment of this community. You may give your deed to the church, and say, “Do with my house and belongings as you will, Lord.” This type of system was implemented under the United Order in the early days of the church. Yet, under this system, the most common person a house that was deeded to the Church would go, would be to the original owner themselves. Perhaps, if some single couple with no children wished of their own accord, then perhaps their larger home may have been given to a larger, poor family, but this system wasn’t designed to rob people, to give to others, like Robin Hood. It was about free will, and demonstrating that we are indeed willing, to give all that we have to the Lord, if and when necessary. It doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes.
Also, under this system, if you wish to leave it, you can, without consequence. You aren’t bullied, harassed, or ostracized for doing so. Try leaving a communist governments mandates, and see what happens. Alternatively, if you would go to the United Order, and say you wish to have all your property deeded back to you, they would do it, and without retribution. They can’t deny you a right to your own materials, which would be contrary to the nature of Heaven, to rob someone. So the biggest impression that must be made upon our minds with Consecration, is the fact that the system operates on two guiding principles, stewardship, and free will.
If one man is particularly successful at running a manufacturing plant for example, they might have an entire factory under their stewardship, paid for and given to them according to the United Order. This factory would likely be bought and or financed, from the collective funds, found in the replete bank, or joint fund belonging to the community. This might seem unfair to some, since all things are held commonly. It is true, all have a right to ask to use something, since all have joined this united collective, but not all have a right to the stewardship of all things. So if this successful man can run the factory better than others, and make lots of goods, or money for the community, it is better that they have stewardship over it and run it on behalf of the community, perhaps even be paid handsomely for their increased efforts and accomplishments. This is the way Heaven operates.
Likewise, if one farmer is particularly apt at farming then another, than they should have larger plots of land with which to farm. In both cases the community is blessed with larger rewards, by those who are particularly gifted with increasing those things they have stewardship over. The community has more goods and services, and more food from crops, because of this communal living. The excess then can be placed in the joint fund, and more property, goods, or buildings could be acquired, to further the success of the community and grow their economic outlook more and more.
The farmer may have more tools, and equipment, and the manufacturer may have more employees to look after under their stewardship, with an expensive building. Yet these stations they are given ultimately bless the community better, than if these positions, land, buildings, or stewardships were handed to those wholly unprepared, incompetent, or those who wantonly disregarding hard work, and would squander these things away without care, causing a detriment. Even though the person who manages this manufacturing place may have more placed under their stewardship, considering all things are technically deeded to the Lord, all own nothing, and they are simply the ones overseeing the stewardship of these items temporarily.
If a person owns a car or tool, and someone else would like to use it under the Law of Consecration, they have a right to ask to use it, since all things are held in common. Yet the person may be requested to pay a fee, or even be denied the use of the item. Because the item is under the stewardship of another, who is in charge of its ultimate care and use. If the person freely gives it to them, then there is no payment required, yet they have the right to request payment, or even deny use of that item if they wish. Perhaps for example, they know that person is reckless, or careless with a particular item, and they do not wish it to be destroyed, which would negatively impact the success of the community. Perhaps the person has destroyed two chainsaws the community owned, and now wants to borrow another. It would be better to deny the person that item, than allow them to destroy it. In such a case, help for that person who need to be rendered to see their task is completed, somehow. And that is what consecration is, love and compassion for one another, while also practicing practical economic measures to follow, that benefit the community as a whole.
I think it becomes clear the way in which Heaven operates when we understand how consecration works. We are given a stewardship, to increase for the success of the community. Some are made the watchmen over larger gardens than others. Some are given more talents, to increase. This system is a joint exercise in progressing the communities success. All are joint heirs in this success, or losses. When we understand what it means to truly live the Law of Consecration, we can better understand what it means to be a joint heir with Christ. I wish every saint understood this concept in great depths. If I have failed to describe it perfectly, then I apologize, considering it is such a crucial thing to understand.”
It's wrong to say that America(modern day) was founded by capitalists. In fact, America was founded by socialists who had the humility to learn from their initial mistakes and embrace freedom.