- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In researching a bit on Ray’s comments earlier that collective interests come ahead of individual interests, I ran into the this article: http://emp.byui.edu/WILLIAMSG/talks/mgr_unitedorder.htm It describes Marion G. Romney’s thoughts on the United Order, and appears to answer the question of whether the United Order is considered Socialism.
Comments on what it says about the role of individual interests vs the interests of the community are welcome, as well as your personal impressions….
It depends on who you ask. Any true-believing Mormon would tell you “of course not!” In my personal opinion, yes it is. Classic redistribution of wealth (not necessarily monetary wealth). And I absolutely believe the reason that the United Order failed each time it was started is because of the fact that as history shows, that type of system just does not work. I’m not sure how you can have the emphasis on work and personal responsibility and still expect a system that allows for redistribution of your increases to others who have less to work. It seems to me that a little effort on the part of the individual goes a long way.
I think that’s why our government welfare system is in such shambles. There are a lot, but not all, who are taking advantage of the system because it means not having to work, getting free housing, free medical benefits and/or free money without having to work for it.
I think that the Church welfare system works because it does require some kind of effort on the part of the recipient where as the federal system does not.
I truly believe people do deserve help when it is needed, but I have seen several instances where individuals are using the system as a crutch in order to not have to put forth any real effort to make their lives better.
The more I think about it, though, when it comes to this kind of topic, I am inwardly full of contradicting notions regarding such systems. Perhaps if I, and everyone else, did more to clothe, feed, minister, house, etc. those around us, perhaps we wouldn’t need these types of programs to begin with.
IMHO…yes…the UO fits the worldly definition of socialism. The big difference would be that greed/covetness/pride would be taken out of the equation…..a “utopia” so-to-speak. It’s hard to visualize how that would work in today’s world. But, a UO system might be beneficial in teaching us to live that way….IF we could pull it off. Several factions, mormon and not, have tried. We’re a long way away from that, I’m afraid. Just sayin….
Romney seems to imply the UO it isn’t socialism, however. He implies that after you give everything to the common pot, you get a portion back, and there is personal ownership of the assets — and SURPLUS is paid to the Church for the common good thereafter. That is different than pure socialism where the government owns everything. IMHO…. In the end, the government (Church) is what you are consecrating all, ALL, that you have to. So technically, they do “own” it all, and divvy it up accordingly. I don’t know. Bruce is right. Whether this would create an actual Utopia, I can’t say. But we certainly are a long way off from that. Isn’t that what Mormonism and the United Order was intended to do though? Especially once the Saints went west with Brigham Young? I don’t think utopia will ever really be achieved in this period of time. Perhaps once there exist the new heaven and new earth, but not in this currently fallen state of things. Is the United Order the same as Socialism? Well, really nothing is the same as anything else, so no, they aren’t the same. But as I read the definition of socialism and bring to my mind scriptures from Doctrine and Covenants, I am leaning toward saying that the United Order is a form of Christian Socialism. Utopia happens every once in a while, with increasing frequency, in my own heart and home. There the new heaven and the new earth appear, and the fallen state of things is left behind. There I let go of all things. There I demand no capital, no insurance, and no security. There I rest peacefully in the bosom of the Father.
Yes it is a form of socialism. However, people in the USA are completely paranoid about that term. In certain senses Jesus was socialist too. He didn’t favor riches. As Noam Chomsky said, in the Cold War, it favored BOTH sides to claim that the USSR was socialist.
A little off topic here, but in my mind the only way any socialist system could work is if it is supported by the attitudes of the society and not mandated by the government. Imagine if people looked with disgust at anyone who was “hoarding” personal wealth, anyone that was holding more resources than they actually needed to live a comfortable life. Such as a bachelor in a mansion on a hill with 20 exotic cars in the garage. If societal norms caused this man to feel shamed and selfish, he would be much more likely to start redistributing his wealth.
If the rich were more widely revered for their philanthropy while living modestly, while embarrassed or made to feel selfish for living extravagantly, their attitudes and actions would gradually change to come into harmony with societal expectations. If they felt tremendous pride in helping to clothe and feed the homeless, that’s what they would do (and many do make great strides in this way). As long as they are worshipped for having huge sums at their personal disposal – for limousines and personal jets – they will continue to amass great wealth for their personal disposal.
Steve M at Wheat and Tares has an interesting post today on utopia. I disagreed with a few of his foundations. I think a utopia needs a special type of manager. There are many flavors of Socialism, and the United Order is one of the flavors (probably one of the best.) I don’t think the town of Orderville failed due to a lack of righteousness per se, but rather to a lack of management. It would be extremely difficult to manage a UO like that. See http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/05/19/why-utopias-fail-falling-short-of-zion/ It is the very definition of socialism. Socialism would actually be the perfect system if you could get people to let go of all greed an laziness. Unfortunately that will never happen with humans. That’s why most socialist governments haven’t lasted long, and that is why the United order failed, too. People figure out they can do less and still get paid the same, and people figure out how to game the system so that distribution is no longer very equal. Corruption ensues. Brown wrote:It is the very definition of socialism.
Unless you believe that God is actually in direct control of the experiment, then yes, that’s what I was thinking too.Quote:Socialism would actually be the perfect system if you could get people to let go of all greed an laziness.
A great book that really opened my eyes to this isThe Road to Serfdom, by F. Hayek. Highly recommended. Brown wrote:Socialism would actually be the perfect system if you could get people to let go of all greed an laziness.
I agree 100%. It could only work where people are self-motivated through love. The government nor anyone else can dictate it. People must see how fruitless greed is, how fruitful selflessness is, and become truly motivated to help others attain a better position in life. Once that ball got rolling and people understood how productive and “wealthy” the entire world could be I think it could gain some real momentum. Until the next generation came along with no memory of the past…
Most tribal/primitive societies operate under a form of socialism. Quote:That’s why most socialist governments haven’t lasted long
Depends what your definition of socialism is – most folk confuse it with communism, which is something slightly different.
Socialist governments are actually quite common in many democratic societies.
Is the UO along the same lines as the New World Order? Just wondering :think:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.