LDS & ex-LDS Political Ideologies

[_barrelomonkeys]

Not only that....but facism thrived on Anti-communism (and Nazism really made hay out of combining antisemitism and anticommunism). Fascism (in theory anyway) seems to be exclusive based on race, culture, religion, etc while socialism is exclusive based on economic class. Of course since socialism favors the lower class it means that it focuses on the majority, while fascism seems to focus on a elite minority (militaristic nature, nationalism, etc).

In my mind anyway, fascism defined itself by the cultural/language/location stuff (IE Nationalistic thought). Socialism (at least as written by Marx) focused on economic position and circumstances, and thought that people were more driven by their economic class and situation than by cultural ties/language ties. In effect Marx thought that workers from across the world will have more in common with other workers than with their own countrymen (something he got wrong by the way).

shhh... you're making too much sense....

[_Bond...James Bond]

Not only that....but facism thrived on Anti-communism (and Nazism really made hay out of combining antisemitism and anticommunism). Fascism (in theory anyway) seems to be exclusive based on race, culture, religion, etc while socialism is exclusive based on economic class. Of course since socialism favors the lower class it means that it focuses on the majority, while fascism seems to focus on a elite minority (militaristic nature, nationalism, etc).

In my mind anyway, fascism defined itself by the cultural/language/location stuff (IE Nationalistic thought). Socialism (at least as written by Marx) focused on economic position and circumstances, and thought that people were more driven by their economic class and situation than by cultural ties/language ties. In effect Marx thought that workers from across the world will have more in common with other workers than with their own countrymen (something he got wrong by the way).

shhh... you're making too much sense....

I won't tell if you won't....

PS: I'm not going to read extremely long essays Coggins. If you can't make a point in a couple of paragraphs odds are that you're overthinking and/or going off topic.

[_Bond...James Bond]

....it is precisely the unimaginably vast individual economic transactions that occur in a free economy between different individuals, each with his own particular interests and creative entrepreneurial potential, hour by hour, day by day, that obviate any possibility of such a system ever being "socialized" at all. No such human relationships can possibly ever be brought under the control of any central authority or the economic life of a society "planned". The socialization of such a massive, complex, highly interdependent network of human economic relationships means very simply the dismantling and destruction of that network. It also means the destruction of the market forces, especially the price mechanism, through which productive economic activity can be made profitable, and hence, economic growth made possible.

Really...capitalism isn't already socialized? Think about all the things that go into making capitalism work.

-The original person-has the idea for the product
-Banks-to protect capital and give out loans so that the product can start being produced, to get the land
-workers-to provide labor (and a market) for the product to be created and consumed
-The Government-to provide a stable place for an idea to grow and be developed, to provide laws that gurantees property rights, to provide a stable currency, etc etc, etc
-Governmental infrastructure-roads to transport products to markets, water and electricity production to work the factory
-Other businesses-to produce raw materials, components, or to use the product in more complex products
-Communications-used to connect to markets, other businesses, the government, etc
-and so on

See what I mean...modern capitalism isn't one man doing his own thing. It's a vast web of many many entities working together for a product. Cooperation allows for the main product to be produced but also for the production of the other goods and services that help to fuel each other.

Socialism can do nothing else other than eat wealth. It can create none where none was before, but only move it from one set of hands to others in a ever diminishing cycle of economic stagnation and decline.

Well the socialism put forth in Russia wasn't really socialism as defined by Marx. Marx said that capitalism had to come in and create a vast means of production that creates vast surpluses and the technological ability to logistically divide it, which didn't happen in Russia or China. They tried to jump from feudal/dynastic/agrarian forms of economy straight into communism while giving capitalism a good hard look (but never getting into it fully).

[_asbestosman]

Really...capitalism isn't already socialized? Think about all the things that go into making capitalism work.

-The original person-has the idea for the product
-Banks-to protect capital and give out loans so that the product can start being produced, to get the land
-workers-to provide labor (and a market) for the product to be created and consumed
-The Government-to provide a stable place for an idea to grow and be developed, to provide laws that gurantees property rights, to provide a stable currency, etc etc, etc
-Governmental infrastructure-roads to transport products to markets, water and electricity production to work the factory
-Other businesses-to produce raw materials, components, or to use the product in more complex products
-Communications-used to connect to markets, other businesses, the government, etc
-and so on

See what I mean...modern capitalism isn't one man doing his own thing. It's a vast web of many many entities working together for a product. Cooperation allows for the main product to be produced but also for the production of the other goods and services that help to fuel each other.

But Bond, they are all guided to cooperate by the invisible hand, not by Big Brother. Each acts for self-interest and yet this selfish behavior tends to be more efficient than having an actual person oversee production and cooperation between entities. The government, banks, etc. aren't particularly aware of the entrepreneur's idea. All they care about is making a buck off someone.

[_Zoidberg]

Well the socialism put forth in Russia wasn't really socialism as defined by Marx. Marx said that capitalism had to come in and create a vast means of production that creates vast surpluses and the technological ability to logistically divide it, which didn't happen in Russia or China. They tried to jump from feudal/dynastic/agrarian forms of economy straight into communism while giving capitalism a good hard look (but never getting into it fully).

I honestly think that if NEP had lasted longer, we would have been much better off; Lenin realized Russia wasn't ready for socialism.

[_Bond...James Bond]

But Bond, they are all guided to cooperate by the invisible hand, not by Big Brother. Each acts for self-interest and yet this selfish behavior tends to be more efficient than having an actual person oversee production and cooperation between entities. The government, banks, etc. aren't particularly aware of the entrepreneur's idea. All they care about is making a buck off someone.

Who's Big Brother? (Government, state, what?)

Actually what people seem to not understand about Marx's socialism is that the capitalist economy doesn't change, the only thing that changes is that the majority owns the means of production and the profits are parceled out more evenly, (than under capitalism where a tiny minority controlls a vast majority of the wealth). But in practice the economy doesn't change. Just the owners of the means of production.


Marx is sketchy as to how the communist economy would actually work (since he considered himself a materialist and didn't want to try to imagine the hypothetical future stateless society) so he stays fairly vague on that point. I really doubt that perfect equality is possible economically, but that we should strive for more economic equality. But that's my interpretation and my opinion.

[_ajax18]

Mercy only has always been contrary to the gospel and is also why liberalism is a false compassion

I don't even see the people who practice liberalism as being that consistent in their belief system. In my experience, political leanings seem to be more tribal and the resultant laws are tailored more to promoting and protecting a specific (usually similar) group of people than a consistent concept such as "mercy" for everyone or even justice for everyone. To the extent that this factionalization is necessary for political survival, the Republican party has been forced to a similar standard. I don't think many people are fooled into thinking that any political faction follows any moral code consistently other than look out for #1.

[_asbestosman]

Who's Big Brother? (Government, state, what?)

Government.

Actually what people seem to not understand about Marx's socialism is that the capitalist economy doesn't change, the only thing that changes is that the majority owns the means of production and the profits are parceled out more evenly, (than under capitalism where a tiny minority controlls a vast majority of the wealth). But in practice the economy doesn't change. Just the owners of the means of production.

Well, I was getting my ideas of capitolism from I heard about Adam Smith in the Econ 110 class. Obviously that wouldn't go into depth, but my understanding was that capitolism as Smith describes it says nothing about the majority wealth being controlled by a minority or people. That is to say that the cooperation currently required between entrepreneurs, banks, governments, etc. fits perfectly well under Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (or at least my rather simple Undergrad understanding of it). Perhaps Marx had a different definition in mind for capitalism--one that would perhaps make Adam Smith a bit of a socialist.

Marx is sketchy as to how the communist economy would actually work (since he considered himself a materialist and didn't want to try to imagine the hypothetical future stateless society) so he stays fairly vague on that point. I really doubt that perfect equality is possible economically, but that we should strive for more economic equality. But that's my interpretation and my opinion.

Ah, well in that sense I think our society does have socialist leanings--I mean I do think there is some minimal equality of wealth which is worked towards in the US, and not just by "the left". It seems to be that without some strives towards equality, or at least more equal opportunity, of wealth that society would be plagued with more troubles. It is my understanding that Smith didn't say anything about striving for more equal opportunity for the poor to gain wealth too. In that sense we certainly are more socialistic. Sure, the rich can send their kids to private schools, but at least the government is striving to educate the poor so they have a chance to break free of poverty. Still, there is much to do before America really gives the poor equal opportunity as the rich to break free of poverty. Perhaps doing this completely impossible.

[_Zoidberg]

The distinction of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, asbestosman. This is what allows people who own the means of production to accumulate more and more wealth and hold hired labor force hostage. Naturally, bourgeoisie's self-interest dictates that they utilize the labor force as much as possible by keeping wages as low as possible. That's why you often have to go and ask for a raise because they just won't bring it to you on a plate, the bastards:) And the workers want higher wages, but they are essentially unable to control anything because they don't have the means; if they go on strike, they lose their income.

Controlling the means of production eventually generates so much income for some that they don't have to work at all, and basically become leeches on society, living off others' labor (rentiers); there still could be capitalists who are actually managing their businesses, but still exploiting the workers. People who are self-employed are in a different category - petite bourgeoisie. Then you have wage-workers and lumpens (criminals and hobos).

So the invisible hand you were referring to has made it so that the minority has been able to gain control of most of the wealth.

That's Marx in a nutshell for you.

[_Mister Scratch]

You don't care about sources Scratch, because you aren't well read enough or educated deeply or broadly enough to know where to go to get what you need. I can drop the names of many of the most prominent intellectuals, scholars, and social commentators in American history and you'll stand there slack jawed. I've done it.

I'd ask good ol' Coggins to prove this, but, as has already been demonstrated (on this very thread, no less!) that would be an exercise in futility.