The Unattained Enlightenment
By Gregory VanWagenen
Introduction
Calling oneself a socialist has always been a challenge, and it seems especially challenging to adopt that description at this particular time and place. Advocating the empowerment of a working class which seems profoundly conservative puts the socialist in one of two positions. Either she is an inconsequential pretender, taking a place on a stage that is watched by only a few other fellow travelers, or she is forced to subsume the conservatism of the working class in an attempt to reach the subject of her concern.
Max Horkheimer is credited with the maxim: Truth takes refuge in small groups of admirable individuals. If the socialists of the 21st century are to achieve anything substantive, barring the sudden and tragic impoverishment of the average worker, it will surely begin with those same admirable individuals chipping away at the false consciousness of capital.
In order to effect meaningful social change, we must know what our own values are, and how they differ from the status quo. We must be able to communicate these values honestly to our peers, acknowledging the inevitable questions and proposing the means to answer them.
Defining Socialism
What is socialism? Most of us think we know, but find a concise definition difficult to draw. In spite of this deficiency, the word itself is incredibly popular, and the concept itself remains popularly unpopular. Talk show hosts and satirists daily label their ideological opponents as socialists, using the word as though it were self-evident and obviously insulting.
Socialism is a complex phenomenon that defies a simple definition. It encompasses science and philosophy, politics and economics. Sweden is a socialist country, and so is Vietnam. Marxist-Leninists are socialists, and so are many anarchists. Jack London was a socialist, and so was Leon Trotsky. Socialism is a broad movement with many competing theories. Some of these theories overlap and some conflict.
There is even disagreement about the disagreement, with some socialists seeing the broad range of socialist interests as a fractious and confusing hindrance, while others accept them as a rich diversity which enhances socialism as a whole.
The idea of socialism is rooted in a romantic egalitarianism, where every individual assumes an opportunity to shape the future of his or her society. Socialism seems handicapped by the very aspect which makes it so popular. Socialism must be many things, and not one, because socialists are many, and not one.
Social Justice
Social justice can be described as an extension of the common American tradition of legal justice to other facets of social life. Most Americans have an instinctive, if limited, view of justice. If it is proper to see individuals as equal before the law, the argument for social justice contends that it is also proper to see them as equals in other social relationships also.
Social justice entails a freedom to think the thoughts we want to think, a freedom to indulge in religion or to agitate against it, and a freedom to peacefully organize. These are all conservative American ideals. Social justice goes further, and also entails a freedom from hunger, a freedom from reasonable fear, and a freedom from oppression.
Social justice advocates a view of human beings as inherently equal despite their inequalities. Every individual is afforded an equal opportunity to partake in the process of shaping their society, and an equal share of the wealth which that society produces.
Ultimately then, socialists unite in the idea of an egalitarian society. There is much disagreement among socialists as to the extent to which a society can abolish domination or eradicate inequality, but this is the one unifying idea which every socialist shares.
Socialism, Science And History
Socialism can be seen as economic and political theories, supported by empirical research, dedicated to the creation and maintenance of an egalitarian society.
Socialism can also be defined by its approach to history. In contemporary terms, a socialist would describe history as interactive. Put simply: Socialists believe that human beings have the inherent capacity to shape their own fate, and thus they become the subject of history, rather than objects which are manipulated by forces like “luck” or “fortune”.
Cooperation And Central Planning
One of the topics that socialists argue about is whether a society could evolve without the need for any structural authority. Some socialists believe that a truly egalitarian society can only be established with the guidance of a central party, to oversee the maintenance of the society as a whole. Others believe that a party is not necessary and that people will achieve socialism simply by removing the authority structures inherent in a capitalist system.
We can deconstruct these arguments and conclude that this is actually a question about human nature. Are human beings inherently selfish, or is the universal narcissism we witness today the product of a lifetime of conditioning by the demands and pressures of capital?
Socialism And Democracy
The existence of Sweden as a contemporary example of democratic socialism at first suggests that socialist democracies can be formed and endure. At the same time, the idea of competing political parties suggests the possibility of a group taking power and instituting inequality within a socialist society. The United Kingdom is probably the best example of a social democracy which has increased political and economic inequality through democratic means in recent history, though there are others.
In some circumstances, it is theorized that establishing inequality may lead to a greater standard of living for people on the bottom tier of a society than could be reached in a more egalitarian society. Is it commensurate with socialism to call for the eradication of inequality if this lowers the standard of living for even the least fortunate? Is it appropriate to abandon egalitarianism if everyone benefits from inequality?
These are questions with no easy answers, but they represent the questions socialists are commonly asked by their intellectual opponents and they deserve to be pondered.
The Relevance Of Socialism
History illustrates many scenarios in which various parties and groups seized power in the name of socialism, only to function as a new incarnation of the ruling class in an even more repressive totalitarian state. Recent history has demonstrated a disturbing trend toward greater concentrations of wealth in the hands of the few, particularly in Europe and North America. It is common to find socialism impugned as the worn out utopia of yesteryear, rather than a vibrant idea which holds the promise of a more equitable distribution of wealth and responsibility in the here and now.
Religion And Socialism
Can any individual reconcile G-d with dialectical materialism?
We have already seen that socialism, in theory, is based upon the application of the scientific method. Both science and religion are vehicles which have great potential for the elevation of humankind, and yet they are so different as to defy any meaningful comparison.
Science is a method by which men and women have the potential to test their physical surroundings and approach an objective observation of how the natural world works. Science is also a body of knowledge compiled by people who have used this method and arrived at conclusions which can be tested and repeated. Science serves to apply this knowledge to manipulate the environment, ideally for the benefit of humankind.
Religion, in contrast, concerns itself with faith and purpose. This is neither the domain of socialism, nor of any other scientific pursuit. While science reveals how, religion tells us why.
In this respect, socialism and faith do not contradict one another, nor should they compete with one another. Both ought to act in symbiosis, as complimentary agents toward the achievement of a just and peaceful society. Those who see one as inherently threatening to the other do so from a shallow understanding of either or both, or as a reaction to specific historical circumstances in which one or both of these vehicles were cynically used to tyrannize or manipulate human beings.
Conclusion
It was in Provo Utah that I first encountered Karl Marx. My grandparents had a large and well-stocked library which included Capital. I found it to be pretty heady stuff as a 12-year old, which is why I kept coming back to it over the years. By 16 I was discussing commodity fetishism in that same library, with the same grandparents, who probably had some regrets that they had put such a book on the shelf.
One of the most beautiful gifts that Mormonism gave to me (aside from grandparents smart enough to argue such esoterica) was the knowledge of my own history and genealogy. Marx was certainly challenging from a literary standpoint, but viewed from a Mormon perspective, Uncle Karl didn’t seem as radical as my teachers made him out to be. I had been raised with stories of Orderville, of cotton cooperatives in St. George, and had read journal entries describing collective farms (probably built on Mennonite, rather than Marxist models) in Southern Alberta. All of these progressive endeavors were initiated by people with whom I shared immediate family bonds. Socialism, it seemed, was in the blood of my people and was the foundational theory behind the society I enjoyed.
While historical experiments give socialists (Mormon and otherwise) much to be proud of, they also reveal disturbing examples of brutality and excess. The implementation of a socialist model, inasmuch as it relies on the centralization of power, has at times ended in disaster. It is heartening to find Mormon socialists honestly acknowledging the failures of the past, while lending their unique perspectives toward the search for solutions.
In spite of the fact that the enlightenment remains unfinished, and despite the unanswered questions, I remain convinced that socialism is a necessary requirement for achieving a true and lasting measure of equality and justice between individuals, and I believe it stands as a prerequisite to any significant human progress. The realization of socialism entails the end of fratricidal wars for profit, the end of exploitation, and the beginning of a new era in human history. This is why I am a socialist, and why I’m proud to join in spirit with the readers of The Mormon Worker as we labor toward this common goal.
I am blown away by the contradictions and hypocrisies contained here.
Trying to justify something as evil as socialism with this intellectual argument
is astounding. Do you not realize that socialism is the plan that Satan
presented in the pre-existence, and that socialism is a war against God and
the plan of salvation? I am sure that your intentions are are good, but the road to hell was paved with good intentions. After reading this article, I have a
question, why do you feel it is your right to steal me?
First of all I want to thank all of you for reading the article and providing insightful criticism.
I have a question, why do you feel it is your right to steal me?
I'm assuming you're talking about someone stealing from you. It's a good question and not entirely unexpected.
When I read about early Mormonism I realize I'm reading a narrative which would have concluded, logically, with the end of the private property
concept. Our people got derailed a little bit and we aren't there yet.
The answer to your question is contained in your great-grandfather's journal. Wherever he lived in Deseret, he was close to a Bishop's Storehouse. He contributed part of his increase to the storehouse and he could go to the storehouse and get things if he and his family needed them. He wasn't stealing from other members of the community when he did this. The commodities he took were already owned by the community, of which he was a member.
Different communities practiced collectivism to different degrees and in different ways, but all the major Mormon communities seem to have had cooperatives and collective farms.
The end result, had it been achieved, might have been called a new primitivism. The world would have been a common storehouse, and everyone who could work would be striving for the good of all (which would have improved them individually also). To call this stealing is to look at the ideal world through the lens of today.
Best,
Gregory
Mormon Church operates its storehouse/welfare program and socialism.
Socialism is based on the idea that the production and property are owned
and controlled by the state, where as with the Church, individuals are
entitled to private property (the church doesn't control what, how, or why
people produce), people are free to be as productive as they can, and if
they have a surplus, beyond their needs and their wants, then it is given to
the storehouse. Also people are encouraged to be as self reliant as
possible, and to only use the storehouse or welfare programs in an
absolute emergency.
I did mean steal from me, I apologize that I forgot a word, however I think
that the statement is actually more powerful as it is. There is nothing wrong
with volunteer charity, the problem comes when the state or controlling
body forces people to give up the fruits of their labor, and then they decide
who is most deserving and distribute it. Ultimately socialism seeks to steal
from the productive and give to the unproductive, this usually happens with
the threat of force or violence. The Church however encourages private
property, production, agency, stewardship, and voluntary charity.
There have also been several Prophets who have very clearly defined the
Church's stance on socialism. That it is evil and destructive and completely
mirrors the plan of satan. Please don't take this as me calling you evil, I am
not, I simply think that some of your ideas are not correct.
I think that you have it backwards, striving for the good of all will not result
in strengthening individuals, it is exactly opposite, strengthening individuals
will result in the ideal situation for all. Look at it this way, increasing overall
average temple attendance will do nothing for me as an individual, I still
need to go through receive my endowment, however me receiving my
endowment as an individual will increase the overall average temple
attendance.
This could be a good discussion
Thanks,
Dustin
Socialism is based on the idea that the production and property are owned
and controlled by the state, where as with the Church, individuals are
entitled to private property.
Let's think about the concept of private property for a moment. Like me, you probably drive home in the evenings in a nice car, to a nice home in a nice (or at least decent) neighborhood.
Like me, you were probably born in the 1970s, in North America; the most prosperous time and place in the history of the world. Like me, you were probably born into a middle-class family with White skin which spoke English as a first language.
I like my house and cars, and I like all the material things I have accumulated. I like to think of these things as 'mine'. But are they really?
Fate decided I get to have these things, while there are people in the third world who work just as hard as I, who live in shacks, tents and cardboard boxes. North America itself boasts some of the world's most shameful internal colonies. Go to appalachia, or to any ghetto or barrio in any major American or Canadian city, or to the central valley of California. You'll find Chinese immigrants in sweatshops, and "White-trash" digging coal, and Mexican immigrants picking fruit. They're all increasing my standard of living, and yours too, in this shell-game we call capitalism. Their kids go hungry so mine can play the Wii.
I guess I'd be willing to trade a nice house in a nice neighborhood for the knowledge that all the children of the next generation have a guarantee of a minimum level of dignity and decency. We've put human beings on the moon and we've cured smallpox. I don't think this is too much to ask of ourselves.
If you don't like calling it socialism or communism, let's call it economic democracy.
First of all, I am a person, not a thing, please address me as a who, not a
which. Secondly, although your assumptions about me are close, I think
that
it is wrong to make general assumptions about people who you don\'t
know.
Thirdly, I really don\'t think that the color of my skin, or the language that I
speak should be considered a factor in what kind of material goods that I
have.
Now ask yourself this question, Why is modern day America the most
prosperous time and place in the history of the world? Certainly not
because
of socialism, but rather because of American Capitalism and our freedom
and liberty to desire and produce value.
I like the \"things\" that I have as well, but I realize that it is a stewardship
that I
have. It has been very interesting for me, because as I have understood
my
stewardship and have worked to improve it, I have seen how it has
increased
tremendously. Before I understood this, I struggled and had very little.
(refer to the parable of the talents)
Fate has nothing to do with my nice car and my nice house. I did not wake
up one morning to find that somehow, my old clunker had been replaced
mysteriously with a nice new car. I have been very deliberate in learning
and
positioning myself to where I could acquire these things. It has taken much
effort, not just physical effort, but serious mental effort. Man\'s mind, the
ability to think and to create is the key here, because without rational
thought, all the physical labor in the world would be utterly wasted. To
suggest that what you have is the result of luck or fate is to suggest that
gambling is the standard. It also suggests that man has no agency, which
of
course goes against the plan of salvation. You seem to be making the
statement that Chinese immigrants, \"white-trash\" coal miners, and
Mexican
immigrants have no choice but to do the things you have said. The last
time
I checked, there was not an army or similar group forcing anyone to work
any specific job (except in communist countries, of course). You seem to
be
making the statement that these people have no free will (agency) of their
own, and that because you and I both drive nice cars that we are somehow
forcing these people to be poor. I can tell you with absolute certainty, that
the car I drive, or the house that I live in has absolutely no effect
whatsoever
on wether or not an immigrant can provide for their family. I can also tell
you
with absolute certainty that taking away my nice car and giving it to
someone
else, will not make them more productive, in fact it will be devastatingly
damaging to their soul. Now before you call me heartless, let me say
something, I would love to see every person driving the car of their dreams,
living in the house of their dreams etc... but if we try to do it for them, we
will
be robbing them of dignity, and cheating them of their test here on earth. I
am all for helping the poor, and being kind to my fellow man, I pay my
tithing
and my fast offerings, I am just against doing it at the point of a gun.
Doesn\'t
it make more sense to teach a man to fish, rather than give him a fish?
That
way he can provide for himself.
If you are so willing to give up the fruits of your labor, and the things that
bring you joy, in exchange for embracing the mediocre, and creating a
lower
standard of achievement for all, then why are your kids still playing a wii?
Why do you still drive a nice car, and live in a nice house? There is
someone else who spoke of a guarantee of a minimum level, that was
Satan.
To quote Ezra Taft Benson:
\"In the war in heaven the devil advocated absolute eternal security at the
sacrifice of our freedom. Although there is nothing more desirable to a
Latter-Day Saint than eternal security in God\'s presence, and although
God
knew, as we did, that some of us would not achieve this security if we were
allowed our freedom-yet the very God of heaven, who has more mercy
than
us all, still decreed no guaranteed security, except by a man\'s own
freedom
of choice and individual initiative.\"
How exactly do you think that taking something desired and earned from
someone, and giving it to someone who has not desired it enough to earn it
is going to create dignity for that person? Would you feel decent or
dignified
if someone was forced to give you what they had earned?
Again, Ezra Taft Benson:
Today the devil as a wolf in supposedly new suit of sheep\'s clothing is
enticing some men, both in and out of the Church, to parrot his line by
advocating planned government guaranteed security programs at the
expense of our liberties...\"
So wether you call it socialism, communism, or economic democracy, you
are still trying to hide a wolf behind sheep\'s clothing. No amount of
deceptive wording will change the fact that this is tyranny, and will destroy
the agency of man
"No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction...."
after reading your article i still don't understand what a concrete definition of socialism would be according to you. based on your experience and your interpretation, what is socialism? and could you specifically explain how coercion is involved and its justification?
this would help me immensely in future discussions with you on the MW.
It is not only the right thing to do, but our duty to help our brothers and sisters in need (love thy neighbor as thyself)....and to say they are on their own, knowing that they do not have the opportunities we do, that is patently wrong and against the teachings of Christ.
The world would be a better place if we had more "Gregorys" and less "Dustins."
replica Gucci watches
replica Cartier watches
replica Corum watches
replica Rolex watches
replica Audemars Pigeut watches
replica Patek Philippe watches
replica Tag_Heuer watches
replica Alain Silberstein watches
replica Bvlgari watches
replica Breitling watches
replica Bell & Ross watches
replica Piaget watches
Christian Louboutin Shoes Tell you
what is not overlooked, the mone of theufacturer comes with the green cone of thenot,
christian louboutin store scarlet
feminine superstars job with the ft Nama attraction the way that in their particular brone
of
thed of attention the way that that will gain.Rest viewing the entire year,
christian louboutin discount you
need to my dear friends put on the way that the structure. Nevertheless all of usll then, i\'ll
describe desired servone of thet of fashion the way that, you should then perhaps who
material pumps cone of the look to my dear friends finished,
christian louboutin for cheap
hoall of usver thinking about if one of theything in the Christione of the Louboutin
saleother. Non the way thatetheless this approach minor Christione of the Louboutin
Diamon the way thatd princess sone of thedal
on the way that earth about,
christian louboutin shoes
Christione of the Louboutin Crystal T Strap Sone of thedal
Red excited love.
Christian Louboutin Sale one
of thed one of the old apron the way that is perfect.
[url=http://www.christianlouboutin-s saleshoppes.com/]christian louboutin on
sale[/url] How to my dear friends Play Dress Up With Clothes one of thed Feather
Boas class=\'admediaTextL inks\'A preschool or elementary age child\'s
imagination
the way that is a won the way thatdrous thing, [url=http://www.christianlouboutin-
shoeshoppes.com/]christian louboutin booties[/url] one of thed playing dress up is
one of the importone of thet one of thed creative way to my dear friends feed it one
of thed to my dear friends fosterdevelopment. [url=http://www.christianlouboutin-
sandalshoppes.com/]shoes christian louboutin[/url] With just a few odds one of
thed ends, kids cone of the trone of theswith his helpm themselves into my dear
friendswhatever their dreams cone of the con the way thatjure up.
[url=http://www.cheapchristianloubou tin-shoppes.com/]christian louboutins on
sale[/url] Unlike playing computer dress up games, physically playing withobjects
they to my dear friendsuch one of thed put on the way that themselves lets
children
experiment, mbt shoes clearance
one of thed to my dear friendscreate one of thed assume roles of their choice
without one of they rules or structure.
Knockoff Coach Bags ,
Hermes Bags,
Gucci Handbags,
Louis Vuitton Speedy 30 Replica Wlcome à acheter! chaussures jimmy choo soldes est le type de mouvement de chaussures, il est mis sur comfortablely, il est des remises de chaussures. 2010, Louboutin Platform Pump,Bottes Christian Louboutin
,Bottes Chloe
Christian Louboutin Mary Janes ,
cheap Jimmy Choo Slingbacks Online 2011, pas cher
Christian Louboutin Very Prive torch,
Christian Louboutin Pigalle Pumps shoes Christian Louboutin 2010，pls visit
www.chaussurescl.org/
Knockoff Coach Bags ,
Hermes Bags,
Gucci Handbags,
Louis Vuitton Speedy 30 Replica Wlcome à acheter! chaussures jimmy choo soldes est le type de mouvement de chaussures, il est mis sur comfortablely, il est des remises de chaussures. 2010, Louboutin Platform Pump,Bottes Christian Louboutin
,Bottes Chloe
Christian Louboutin Mary Janes ,
cheap Jimmy Choo Slingbacks Online 2011, pas cher
Christian Louboutin Very Prive torch,
Christian Louboutin Pigalle Pumps shoes Christian Louboutin 2010，pls visit
www.chaussurescl.org/
Maybe she was accustomed a line wedding dressesto be called "princess Diana". Or maybe she had done a lot for this title, she could not loss wholesale cheap evening dresses.
soccer cleat
discount soccer cleats
nike ctr 360 maestri
ljp
Louis Vuitton Outlet is maintained by
the transferor your world of style,Many celebrities are fans of honest
Gucci Outlet.Welcome to our store choose
fashion product for yourself!