Redistribution of Wealth

You are currently browsing articles tagged Redistribution of Wealth.

Introduction to Notes on Socialism

January 10, 2010 in Socialism by Greg | 6 comments

The following is an introduction to the series of notes on socialism. Its companion series is Socialism vs Capitalism and if possible, should be read together to get an understanding of these two competing political economic theories.

This series began as an investigation into the roots of modern socialism. Many trace its “origins in the French Revolution of 1789 and the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution.”1 In fact, the term “socialism” is often “attributed to Pierre Leroux in 1834, who called socialism ‘the doctrine which would not give up any of the principles of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity of the French Revolution of 1789.’”2

The Law of Consecration and Socialism Compared

Zion’s Cooperative Mercantile Institution From a religious perspective, socialism is of interest to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it bears some similarities with various attempts by the Church to implement the “law of consecration”. For example,

The Lord revealed several purposes for the law of consecration: to bring the Church to stand independent of all other institutions (D&C 78:14); to strengthen Zion, adorning her in beautiful garments, as a bride prepared and worthy of the bridegroom (D&C 33:17; 58:11; 65:3; 82:14, 18; etc.); and to prepare the Saints for a place in the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 78:7).

Commenting on this subject, President John Taylor stated that consecration is a celestial law and, when observed, its adherents become a celestial people (JD 17:177-81). Thus, men and women today can become like as those of Enoch’s day, “of one heart and one mind,…with no poor among them” (Moses 7:18). Orson Pratt, an early apostle, observed that if the Lord’s people aspire to the Celestial Kingdom, they must begin to learn the order of life that is there (JD 2:102-103).3

Since Zion designates both a place of gathering4 and an ideal society where “the pure in heart” live in harmony5, it bears many resemblances to utopian societies – real and imagined – of the past.6

Continuing, John A. Widtsoe, an apostle, explained how the law of consecration was implemented in the early Church:

Continue reading Introduction to Notes on Socialism »»

  1. “History of Socialism”. Wikipedia. 9 Jan 2009.↩
  2. “Socialism”. Wikipedia. 9 Jan 2009.↩
  3. Hirschi, Frank W. “Law of Consecration”. 1992. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. 9 Jan 2009.↩
  4. See the post the Redemption of Zion.↩
  5. Sorensen, A. Don. “Zion”. 1992. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. 9 Jan 2009.↩
  6. Nibley, Hugh W. “The Utopians.” Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. 9 Jan 2009.↩

Nibley on the Redistribution of Wealth

October 29, 2008 in Socialism by Greg | 35 comments

Yesterday, I read Bryce’s post A Prophet Declares “Redistribution of Wealth” is Socialism. If you read through the comments to that post, you may have noticed it generated quite a debate that eventually ended with ad hominems and a closure of comments.

Despite the fact that this debate once again reminded me of Hegelian Dialectic that has come to dominate political discourse in our society, a number of comments were made about what Nibley supposedly believed, taught, and wrote concerning the redistribution of wealth. So today I thought I would go back and check what Nibley actually had to say about the matter.

Dr. Nibley summed up the problem of the “redistribution of wealth” after quoting Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. He summarized More’s beliefs in this way:

He points out that laws limiting ownership, sumptuary laws, laws against corruption in government, and so on – none of these will cure the fatal disease as long as we have private property, which indeed is the disease.1

GM Factory Redistribution of Wealth and Private Property

If private property is in fact the disease which is core to the issue of the redistribution of wealth, what is private property? In the same volume, Dr. Nibley gave this insightful commentary:

The words property and private have the same root (prop = priv by Grimm’s Law) and emphasize the same thing – that which is the most intimate and personal part of an individual. The Oxford English Dictionary specifies “privatus–peculiar to oneself . . . that belongs to or is the property of a particular individual; belonging to oneself, one’s own.” And “proprius–own, proper, . . . property, the holding of something as one’s own.” Both definitions fall back on Old English agen (German eigen), “expressing tenderness or affection . . . in superlative, very own.” Webster has “Latin privatus apart from the state . . . of or belonging to one-self, . . . single, private, set apart for himself.” What is privatum or proprium is therefore peculiar to one person alone (not a corporation). It is something that I could not do without, under any social or economic system, and that would have little interest for anyone else, such as my clothes, shoes, books, notes, bedding, glasses, teeth, comb, and so on. Because they are personal and indispensable to me and of no value to anyone else, they must be inalienable to me, for there is great danger if they fall into the hands of another. The bully on the block who grabs another boy’s glasses can get him to do almost anything to get them back, because he must have them, and the bully knows it. The mill-owner who threatened to withhold lunch from the workers could always get them to work on his terms, claiming their lunches as his private property to dispose of as he chose.2

In other words, “these two totally different views of private property” are in stark contrast with each other.

Continue reading Read the rest of this entry »

  1. Nibley, Hugh W. “The Utopians“. Approaching Zion. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989. 501.↩
  2. Nibley, Hugh W. “Work We Must But the Lunch is Free”. Approaching Zion. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989. 221.↩

Spread the Wealth

October 26, 2008 in Socialism by Greg | 4 comments

Recently, in an exchange with Joe Wurzelbacher, Barack Obama said that if he were elected president, he would “spread the wealth around”. Here is an excerpt of that exchange:

YouTube Preview Image

Obama’s “redistribution of wealth” statement reminded me of this principle taught by John Taylor1:

There is also another political party, who desire, through the influence of legislation and coercion, to level the world. To say the least, it is a species of robbery; to some it may appear an honorable one, but, nevertheless, it is robbery. What right has any private man to take by force the property of another? The laws of all nations would punish such a man as a thief. Would thousands of men engaged in the same business make it more honorable? Certainly not. And if a nation were to do it, would a nation’s act sanctify a wrong deed? No; the Algerine pirates, or Arabian hordes, were never considered honorable, on account of their numbers; and a nation, or nations, engaging in this would only augment the banditti, but could never sanctify the deed.2

Regardless of which party is in control of the White House, none seem able to stop this form of legalized “robbery”.

For an interesting perspective on “distributism” and whether the free market conforms with Catholic principles, see Thomas E. Woods, Jr.’s article What’s Wrong with “Distributism”.

Sources:

  1. John Taylor was the third Prophet and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1880-1887. He was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph Smith and his teachings.↩
  2. Taylor, John. The Government of God. London: W. Bowden, 1852. 23.↩