Mormon Communists
A lifelong friend of mine, with whom I disagree on many ideological issues, recently wrote an impassioned defense of communism.
I quote relevant excerpts:
I tried to post this response at his myspace page, but it didn't work. So, since I wasted so much time writing it, I post it here for your amusement.
________________
A few thoughts from a right-wing loon, offered in a playful and non-ideological spirit…
COMMUNISM IS TYRANNY!! BLAH BLAH BLAH!
Phew. Now that that’s out of the way…
Besides being a right-wing loon, I’m also a lifelong Mormon, and it may surprise you to learn that Mormons were initially criticized for their communitarian leanings. Joseph Smith, the first president of the Church, instituted a communal society with what came to be known as the United Order.
The idea was that members gave all of their wealth to the Church, which then returned to each member a “stewardship,” which they were to manage for the good of the community as a whole, with all surplus wealth generated to be returned to the Church for the benefit of the poor. The system was similar to what the early apostles attempted in the Book of Acts, and, according to additional LDS revelations, it was the law of Zion , in which people were “of one heart and one mind…and there were no poor among them.” (Moses 7:18)
It was a great idea. And it didn’t work.
Despite having the force of divine law behind it, the United Order was not backed up by the law of the land. As a result, when people decided they wanted to keep their own wealth, thank you very much, there wasn’t a whole lot the church could do about it. And once people started pulling out, the system collapsed.
And why did people start pulling out? Predictable reasons. You can call it greed or selfishness if you like. Many of them thought the Church was mismanaging their resources, and they thought they could do a better job. At times, they were probably right. Every community is made up of imperfect people, and when somebody has to make the decision as to how resources are to be dispensed, somebody else is going to disagree.
It’s important to note that the United Order differed from Marxism/Leninism in three key areas:
So where am I going with all this?
When you say “Jesus was a Communist,” I think you’re absolutely right in the traditional, non-ideological definition of the term – i.e. he believed in building an economic community where all are equal and there are no poor among us. I would say that he was encouraging us to live the United Order. To say, however, that Jesus was a Marxist would be fundamentally incorrect. Certainly he would not have approved of an economic system that mandated the wholesale rejection of God.
Communitarian living is the divine ideal, but it only works when governed by divine principles. When a perfect person is the one who decides how resources are distributed without bias or self-interest, and everyone is in the order voluntarily and participating wholeheartedly, than a United Order works perfectly. But when real, imperfect people get involved, and when communitarian living is enforced at the end of a gun, you get big, messy, and, yes, bloody problems.
You state several times that you’re not defending the vile excesses of the Soviet state, and I ought to state that I am in no way ignorant of the weaknesses of capitalism. I feel about capitalism the way Winston Churchill felt about democracy, which he called “the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
If you doubt this, reflect on the fact that this simple discussion would be impossible in Soviet Russia. To express grave doubts about your own government in a public forum would be to invite imprisonment and death. For all its faults, the United States still allows you to criticize her without fear of reprisal. That, in and of itself, sets us apart from the Communist world.
Hope I haven’t ticked you off, and that you feel better soon!
I quote relevant excerpts:
It troubles me immensely that there is no organized Communist power to oppose the complete capitalist depredation of discourse and the world.
And people have been so brainwashed by capitalist propaganda, and the reaction against communism is so kneejerk that it just demonstrates the complete idiocy of 99% of my fellows.
Please, don't bore me with your glib statements of "Communism is tyranny..." blah blah blah...
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that the Communist State was anything approaching ideal.
But on the other hand, some of the literature of the Communists is not only brilliant, it's extremely rational and logical. To anyone with a logical mind, it's very convincing...
Christ, for those who aren't aware, was a Communist. He advocated people selling all they had to give to the poor (a Robin Hood figure if there ever were one), and said that in his society, the have-nots would have everything the greedy have's had, in a complete, topsy-turvy shake-down of society. Jesus was a revolutionary.
That doesn't mean that I wanted to live in Russia. But I still want to listen to that era of Russia (and the larger Communist world), because I know that liberation cannot come without that dialogue, because they hold one of the pieces. They may very well be missing many of the pieces, but that they hold one or some of the pieces I know for certain.
I look forward to a day when these sorts of things can be discussed openly, publicly, and joyously in the United States without having some Fox News-rabble repeat the joyless ad nauseums of their John Birch demagogues.
I tried to post this response at his myspace page, but it didn't work. So, since I wasted so much time writing it, I post it here for your amusement.
________________
A few thoughts from a right-wing loon, offered in a playful and non-ideological spirit…
COMMUNISM IS TYRANNY!! BLAH BLAH BLAH!
Phew. Now that that’s out of the way…
Besides being a right-wing loon, I’m also a lifelong Mormon, and it may surprise you to learn that Mormons were initially criticized for their communitarian leanings. Joseph Smith, the first president of the Church, instituted a communal society with what came to be known as the United Order.
The idea was that members gave all of their wealth to the Church, which then returned to each member a “stewardship,” which they were to manage for the good of the community as a whole, with all surplus wealth generated to be returned to the Church for the benefit of the poor. The system was similar to what the early apostles attempted in the Book of Acts, and, according to additional LDS revelations, it was the law of Zion , in which people were “of one heart and one mind…and there were no poor among them.” (Moses 7:18)
It was a great idea. And it didn’t work.
Despite having the force of divine law behind it, the United Order was not backed up by the law of the land. As a result, when people decided they wanted to keep their own wealth, thank you very much, there wasn’t a whole lot the church could do about it. And once people started pulling out, the system collapsed.
And why did people start pulling out? Predictable reasons. You can call it greed or selfishness if you like. Many of them thought the Church was mismanaging their resources, and they thought they could do a better job. At times, they were probably right. Every community is made up of imperfect people, and when somebody has to make the decision as to how resources are to be dispensed, somebody else is going to disagree.
It’s important to note that the United Order differed from Marxism/Leninism in three key areas:
- Members of the United Order, while accountable to the community as a whole, still preserved a measure of private property ownership, whereas Marxism requires all property to be owned by the state.
- The United Order was only binding with regard to the faith of the participants, who could leave the Order without fear of governmental reprisal. Marxism, as practiced by the Soviets et al, is preserved by the military power of the state.
- The United Order was predicated on each participant’s faith in the divine, whereas Marxism, by its very definition, is militantly atheistic.
So where am I going with all this?
When you say “Jesus was a Communist,” I think you’re absolutely right in the traditional, non-ideological definition of the term – i.e. he believed in building an economic community where all are equal and there are no poor among us. I would say that he was encouraging us to live the United Order. To say, however, that Jesus was a Marxist would be fundamentally incorrect. Certainly he would not have approved of an economic system that mandated the wholesale rejection of God.
Communitarian living is the divine ideal, but it only works when governed by divine principles. When a perfect person is the one who decides how resources are distributed without bias or self-interest, and everyone is in the order voluntarily and participating wholeheartedly, than a United Order works perfectly. But when real, imperfect people get involved, and when communitarian living is enforced at the end of a gun, you get big, messy, and, yes, bloody problems.
You state several times that you’re not defending the vile excesses of the Soviet state, and I ought to state that I am in no way ignorant of the weaknesses of capitalism. I feel about capitalism the way Winston Churchill felt about democracy, which he called “the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
If you doubt this, reflect on the fact that this simple discussion would be impossible in Soviet Russia. To express grave doubts about your own government in a public forum would be to invite imprisonment and death. For all its faults, the United States still allows you to criticize her without fear of reprisal. That, in and of itself, sets us apart from the Communist world.
Hope I haven’t ticked you off, and that you feel better soon!
9 Comments:
Testing...
This post rhymed with soaring.
There's nudity in it.
Testes...testes...one...two...three?
Communism is soooooo passe. Write about cooler stuff, like governmental conspiracies.
Ok, I'll bite on the boring post, and repeat something my liberatrian contracts professor husband said about communism.
One of the reasons it doesn't work that you didn't mention is the problem of information. FOr a central government to be effective, and meet everybody's economic needs, it has to amass giant amounts of information, and keep track of it. It's just not possible to do that effectively. Free markets, however, can meet needs without having to amass any information beyond the answer the question, "What will the people who are in my immediate vicinity pay for?" and the price dictates how much they need a certain commodity, or how much they value it. That's the beauty of free markets, and why government subsidies can screw things up so badly (i.e, ethanol/corn prices). It's not perfect, and there are obvious opportunities for exploitation in a free market economy, but it works better than a central government trying to make everything happen.
So says the libertarian.
Hello All,
"It was a great idea. And it didn’t work."
No, it wasn't a great idea and that's why it didn't work. It wasn't a great idea, because it was centralized rather than truly from the bottom up and then from the top down also (level), the only right alternative that you conveniently overlooked. As for people in the church deciding to keep their own so-called wealth, how could they remain in the church if Jesus calls for the Church to share all? The individuals were not "the Church." The church was top down. It was central planning only if the characterization is accurate here in this post. That's not in the spirit of the least being the first. It's antichrist.
When the people are the Church (members are the Church) and they decide by consensus agreeing to abide by the decision of the whole (be one) guided by the divine law as spoken by Jesus, that's the spirit that doesn't fail. Starting off with something else (falsehood) dooms it to failure.
Also, according to the things cited about the "United Order," ("preserved a measure of private property ownership"), their hearts were not entirely in it from the start.
Stallion Cornell, you wrote, "Communitarian living is the divine ideal, but it only works when governed by divine principles. When a perfect person is the one who decides how resources are distributed without bias or self-interest, and everyone is in the order voluntarily and participating wholeheartedly, than a United Order works perfectly." You see here that you are assuming a perfect person (one person) rather than the whole community doing what they did in the first generation of Christians. None took excessively. Each looked out for all, the one, the whole. When you get the Church together, they ask themselves, what's best for each and all. Who among them then wants what is selfish? None does.
What happened to James and the others? James was martyred. He was martyred by those who sought to suppress the religion. Is that failure on the part of the religion, or is it failure on the part of the murderers? I say the murderers are the failures.
Now, here's the truth. Winston Churchill's observation is not analogous, because communism is working amongst the Hutterites for example. They've shown that it works and works very well. There are no Hutterite adults without when any Hutterite adult has enough. (I single out the adults, because I don't doubt for a minute that the Hutterite adults would all self-sacrifice for the children.) That's far closer to the Kingdom than U.S. capitalism. Others have shown that it works as well. There are many successful communes in the world. There are many successful religious orders. I have a long list of them on my site.
Finally, you are arguing against communism as if Soviet Russia was genuinely communist. It was not. The top lived in luxury and splendor. They were rich in mammon. Brezhnev had a foreign sports car collection that billionaires envied. If you are going to defeat the idea of real communism, you have to defeat the idea of Christ Jesus. Defeating militant Marxism-Leninism is not defeating the idea of communism. It is defeating the idea of a one-party, violent, totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat that wasn't even that. It was a cover for the elitists at the top such as Stalin and Mao who didn't have a real communist bone in their bodies.
Your tactic is the straw man. You set up what is easily refuted and speak as if you've proven that Christians aren't called to live communistically when they most certainly are.
As for not having fear of reprisal from the government of the United States for speaking out against it, obviously you've never been clubbed or otherwise abused by the government for speaking out against it, peaceably speaking or not, advocating no violence or not. Obviously you are ignoring those in the United States who are calling for more and more curtailment of freedom of political speech, Newt Gingrich for instance being a prime example.
The U.S. has a long history of suppressing free political speech. It revs up fear and then uses the fabricated boogeyman as an excuse to clamp down on those who would speak out against capitalism for instance when those who speak out begin to convince others with sound reasoning, tight logic, and historically demonstrable and verifiable facts rather than just echoing false propaganda from think tanks funded by the plutocrats (corporatists, world bankers, usurers; the very moneychangers Jesus cleans from the worshipful house of God). When those speaking out start pointing to Jesus as the living example, then the self-authorized coercive ones really become nervous that the people might follow, just as the murdering Pharisees worried about Jesus.
Jesus is a communist. He is an extremist and radical. He is not right or left on the false ideological spectrum once craftily designed to be thought-terminating. It is being exposed however. You'd be wise to come down on the side of Jesus on this.
God bless all with the truth,
Tom Usher
Tom Usher, your comment is a long-winded, rambling, incoherent, contradictory load of garbage that isn't even that.
Dear Professor Chaos,
My comment is shorter than the post. I took fewer words to refute it than Stallion used in attempting to make his points. I didn't digress. My words were all directed to his attempted points. The comment does not fail to make the necessary connections. It is a chaotic mind that is failing comprehension. You've leveled accusations without supporting your claims.
Your challenge: Point to a contradiction that will standup in public after I've had an opportunity to reply.
Are you able to write 800 to 1000 words on the subject here that will not fall to being long-winded, chaotic, or contradictory? Let's see you do it. Put up or .......
hold your tongue (that's peace).
God bless, really. It's truth.
Tom Usher
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home