The Order of Enoch and Marxist Socialism

[EltonJ]

Hi everyone! My name is Elton J, and I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I am a supporter of the Law of Consecration. Otherwise called the Order of Enoch. I would love that the U.S.A. adopt this plan of Economics over Marxist Socialism. Now, there is some confusion between Marxist Socialism and the Order of Enoch. Yes, they are similar to each other, but there is differences that puts them in opposition with one another.

On Property: In the Order of Enoch, you own your own private property except for certain community services like public utilities. Marxist socialism -- everything is state owned, state operated, and state controlled.

On profits: In the order of Enoch, all profits are retained by the individual "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and his needs (re: desire)." All surplus is to be voluntarily donated to the common treasury of the Order. (read D&C 42:33, 55, and 70:7). In Marxist socialism, no private profits are permitted.

On participation: In the order of Enoch, its voluntary. Your unalienable right to be your own Man or Woman is preserved. You are considered a free agent by this plan. In Marxist socialism, you are considered a slave of the State and a person without the right to be your own free agent.

On the Family Unit: In the Order of Enoch, the nuclear family is made the basic social unit of the Order. Fixed upon family members is the reciprocal obligation to look to the material needs of one another. The Order took over only when the family had failed for some reason to fulfill its functions. In Marxist Socialism the Communist Manifesto states: "Abolition of the Family! ... the bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course . . . with the vanishing of capital." (see p. 26). Marriage and family relations are be outlawed by Marx. The Manifesto also continues with "the communists desire to introduce an openly legalized community of women." (see p.28). Children born to such women were to be raised by the State. (They did try this in the U.S.S.R., but it didn't work.)

On Personal Security: In the Order of Enoch, you will have the right to possess all legal title to your property held in a stewardship permitted to you -- Man or Woman. You will be able to enjoy full independence even to the point of taking your stewardship out of the system if you so desire. Under Marxist socialism, you have no personal security and no legal title to your property.

On Competition and Cooperation in the Marketplace: encouraged. Each Man and Woman attempts to prove themselves "a profitable servant" and the more ingenuity and efficiency they manifest the more profitable they are considered to be. Under the Order of Enoch, there will be a FREE Market (most likely an Agoran Free Market). Under Marxist socialism such things as competition is forbidden.

On Supervision: In the Order of Enoch, there is a decentralization of Supervision over a Man and a Woman. Each man and woman is given a wide latitude as to the manner of how they will develop their own stewardships to the greatest possible advantage to themselves and to the community. The judgement by the bishop or another (secular) authority in the nation is on the final results. In Marxist socialism, supervision is highly centralized. Each person is frozen to his job and must perform "programmed."

On Morals, Spirituality, and Religion: These were the foundation of the Order of Enoch. Respect for God and His power is the soil that the Order of Enoch can sink its roots. The Order is based on the precept which made each man and woman his brother and sister's watchman. Marxist socialism does not respect Adonai and His power. Both Adam Weishaupt and Marx believed that "religion is the opium of the people." Karl Marx went further and wrote in the Communist Manifesto: "Communism abolishes eternal truths; it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

I do not support Marxism as the better system for the United States based on the above comparisons. I desire to live under the Order of Enoch instead of the Order of Marx and Weishaupt. You all, of course, must choose which Order is better for you to live under.

[Dean]

Marxists don't believe in state enslavement. Rather, they believe in the emancipation of the working class via self-control over their production and economic life.

It sounds like you're trying to draw distinctions between Marxist socialism from an (leftist?) anarchist standard under "Enoch." Unfortunately, your concept of Marxist organization is completely false.

[EltonJ]

Well, if you actually believe that, then go to President Monson and say you want to enact the Order of Enoch instead of the Pharaoh that occupies the White House. Because, apparently, you have the right idea but you are allowing the Pharaoh in the White House to paint your Ideology as something else.

If you really are Marxist, you stand behind Adam Weishaupt and Karl Marx and what the Pharaoh is warping Marxism into. However, if you believe in the freedom of the "working man" then you really support the Law of Consecration. Instead of allowing Pharaoh to warp your Marxism into something else then you should pray to Yeshua ben Joseph ben David that he should return to the Earth and enact His order, the Order of Enoch.

[Demogorgon]

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/bong.jpg
This is the image that immediately jumps into my head as I read this.

[Skooma Addict]

I am a member of the Order of the Knights Templar. We are at war with the Order of Enoch over the cities of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Acre.

[Revy]

I'm a member of the Illuminati. we serve the reptilian overlords.....

[#FF0000]

Well, if you actually believe that, then go to President Monson and say you want to enact the Order of Enoch instead of the Pharaoh that occupies the White House.

Wait, what?


Because, apparently, you have the right idea but you are allowing the Pharaoh in the White House to paint your Ideology as something else.

I guess you're talking about Obama, who is not a marxist in any capacity?


If you really are Marxist, you stand behind Adam Weishaupt No.


and Karl Marx Yes


and what the Pharaoh is warping Marxism into.

No.


However, if you believe in the freedom of the "working man" then you really support the Law of Consecration.

[citation needed]

In any case, your understanding of Marxism is completely false. Have you ever read any Marx, aside from skimming the Manifesto?

[EltonJ]

I am a member of the Order of the Knights Templar. We are at war with the Order of Enoch over the cities of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Acre.

Silly Skooma addict, Antioch and Acre aren't Antioch and Acre anymore. :) I have no reason to fight a bunch of silly knights in silly tin-suits that overheat in the desert sun. After all, I have an air-conditioned tank.

LOL!

[cb9's_unity]

So basically your buying into the 'socialism is slavery' bullshit. Please explain to all of us how Marx believed in this super-authoritarian slave state, but also in a stateless society?

[EltonJ]

I'm a member of the Illuminati. we serve the reptilian overlords.....

Hello, THC, I'm actually a Pleiadan human.

[GPDP]

I have no words to describe how utterly dumbfounded I currently am by this thread. I hope I'm not the only one.

[EltonJ]

Wait, what?



I guess you're talking about Obama, who is not a marxist in any capacity?

He's actually a Corporatist. That's still very bad, seemingly how the National Democratic Socialists doesn't like him.


In any case, your understanding of Marxism is completely false. Have you ever read any Marx, aside from skimming the Manifesto?

I could be, but are you sure you're not mixing Idealistic Marx with Practical Marx? It's the nature of the State to acquire and preserve their power, is it not?

The Ideal Marxism is actually the Law of Consecration divorced from it's actual author. Practically, the people who implemented Marxism ended up wielding a lot of power over the people. Stalin killed many of his own people in his dictatorship. In China many Chinese were killed that posed any opposition to the Marxist regime.

An Ideal Marxist government cannot work in the hands of humans who are susceptible to the corruption of power. Mao and Lenin may have had good intentions but power corrupts and power corrupted these men absolutely. Do you want to trust your Marxist government to men who can and will be corrupted absolutely?

[Bud Struggle]

Do you want to trust your Marxist government to men who can and will be corrupted absolutely?


If you don't believe in the LDS God--this exorcize is kind of pointless.

[GPDP]

Do you want to trust your Marxist government to men who can and will be corrupted absolutely?

No, which is why, tankies aside, no socialist wants to trust it to such men. We seek to trust the "Marxist government" to EVERYONE. As in, a genuinely democratic government, without a Dear Leader putting up statues of himself across the glorious Motherland.

[Argument]

No, which is why, tankies aside, no socialist wants to trust it to such men. We seek to trust the "Marxist government" to EVERYONE. As in, a genuinely democratic government, without a Dear Leader putting up statues of himself across the glorious Motherland.I have to admit that my knowledge of marxism is limited, but how do you intend to establish such a government? And if you manage to have it democratically run, why do you even need it? Why build a new state when the people seem to be able to do without?

[#FF0000]

He's actually a Corporatist. That's still very bad, seemingly how the National Democratic Socialists doesn't like him.

Yeah, I'm well aware of that. Not sure who the "national democratic socialists" are, though.


I could be, but are you sure you're not mixing Idealistic Marx with Practical Marx? It's the nature of the State to acquire and preserve their power, is it not?

The Marxist understanding of the state is that it is a tool of class war that serves whatever class is in power at the time. If it is serving the bourgeoisie, you've got capitalism, and if it's a worker's state, then you have socialism.


An Ideal Marxist government cannot work in the hands of humans who are susceptible to the corruption of power. Mao and Lenin may have had good intentions but power corrupts and power corrupted these men absolutely. Do you want to trust your Marxist government to men who can and will be corrupted absolutely?

No socialist wants to trust the government to a handful of individuals, though. And saying "corruption" is what made the soviet union collapse and caused problems with china is really, really, really simplistic and bad history.

[#FF0000]

I have to admit that my knowledge of marxism is limited, but how do you intend to establish such a government? And if you manage to have it democratically run, why do you even need it? Why build a new state when the people seem to be able to do without?

To defend the gains made by the revolution. The same reason any society has a state.

[RGacky3]

Order of Enoch? How on earth does anyone know what sort of economic system Enoch supported?

Socialism is'nt a System, its a set of principles.

[EltonJ]

No, which is why, tankies aside, no socialist wants to trust it to such men. We seek to trust the "Marxist government" to EVERYONE. As in, a genuinely democratic government, without a Dear Leader putting up statues of himself across the glorious Motherland.

Everyone. I would trust EVERYONE to be a tyrant if they actually did not seek power over EVERYONE ELSE. IF any entity which would exert external control over the community were to be abolished in favor of seeking a personal Relationship with one's Higher Self; then I'd agree with you.

However, if an organization was set up to mantain a government, said organization will abuse power over time. History has shown this to be true many, many times. First example was the Government of Ancient Egypt. It was originally set up after the Order of Adam; but it had corrupted in time to the point where the Pharaoh was considered a God and people had to worship him.

Other examples include the Roman Republic degenerating into Empire, the Athenian Democracy turning against Socrates, the Catholic Church stifling science and the arts, and on and on. How is Marxism a legitimate government and how can you maintain a man and woman's free agent status without the demos growing corrupt? Can you trust the demos not to do terrible things against you and your property? Or would it be better to have the People understand exactly What They Really Are and what they can be capable of? Perhaps, given a full understanding of Right and Wrong, would it be better to govern yourself and only yourself as you see fit?

Wouldn't you rather govern yourself and only yourself as you see fit and not go along with the crowd? The problem I see with Marxism is encroaching conformity. Peer pressure would be big in the government you are describing. Wouldn't you rather be different? Be your own Master? Be your own Man? The demos can easily take over and you have sheeple mentality all over again in the Marxism you want. The Order of Enoch will always respect the individual. Marxism might not.

[Bud Struggle]

Order of Enoch? How on earth does anyone know what sort of economic system Enoch supported?


The LDS are gaining supporters a lot faster in the US than the Communists. A LOT faster.

This LDS system may not be the perfect future way--but like all ways including Communism and Anarchism--it deserves consideration. To really plan for the future all systems should be considered and the best one chosen ON MERIT.

[Dimentio]

Well, if you actually believe that, then go to President Monson and say you want to enact the Order of Enoch instead of the Pharaoh that occupies the White House. Because, apparently, you have the right idea but you are allowing the Pharaoh in the White House to paint your Ideology as something else.

If you really are Marxist, you stand behind Adam Weishaupt and Karl Marx and what the Pharaoh is warping Marxism into. However, if you believe in the freedom of the "working man" then you really support the Law of Consecration. Instead of allowing Pharaoh to warp your Marxism into something else then you should pray to Yeshua ben Joseph ben David that he should return to the Earth and enact His order, the Order of Enoch.

Obama is not a marxist. Most marxists view him as a right-winger. In Europe, he would be considered to be a right-centrist politician. The Swedish conservative party is probably on the left of Obama.

Moreover, I haven't seen anyone here advocating that your underwear, your TV, your car or other personal belongings would be public property. What people here want is for factories, farms, infrastructure and research to be collectively owned, operated and used for the general good of society.

[Argument]

Obama is not a marxist. Most marxists view him as a right-winger.EltonJ did say that he is more of a Corporatist.

[Dimentio]

Well, Mormonism certainly is very special. Most radical protestant cults were originally at least partially anti-capitalist and anti-privilege. The first bourgeois revolutions in Europe were led by protestant cults.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Uh, so after all that shit about slavery and states you want us to entrust the distribution of all property to a church?

[Bud Struggle]

Uh, so after all that shit about slavery and states you want us to entrust the distribution of all property to a church?

It's as foolish as entrusting distribution of property to a government or a party. What does it matter who is in charge? when someones in charge there's going to be favoritism and corruption.

Score one here for Anarchism.

[#FF0000]

It's as foolish as entrusting distribution of property to a government or a party. What does it matter who is in charge? when someones in charge there's going to be favoritism and corruption.

Which can be dealt with and lessened by having a system to keep them accountable, which isn't impossible to have.

[Hit The North]

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/Assets/bong.jpg
This is the image that immediately jumps into my head as I read this.

Really? I get this image:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/powellL0411_468x825.jpg

[Bud Struggle]

Which can be dealt with and lessened by having a system to keep them accountable, which isn't impossible to have.

That was the way both the United States and the USSR were supposed to be when they were created. It seems even the slightest power tends to centralize.

[cska]

You are a heathen and believe that the deity is a mere human being. This is false. The true deity is the Invisible Pink Unicorn, blessed be her holy hooves.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the one and only real deity, and I am one of her prophets! The IPU commands that we establish an international state of the proletariat. Furthermore, the IPU calls on all believers to launch a holy war against the Order of the Enoch!

[Demogorgon]

Really? I get this image:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/powellL0411_468x825.jpg
Actually, I did think that when I saw the title :lol:

Then I realised that a thread on that idiot would be better, even, than what we have here.:rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

That was the way both the United States and the USSR were supposed to be when they were created. It seems even the slightest power tends to centralize.

Ehhhh I don't like characterizations like that because it's so broad that it can neatly be applied to two very different events in history, which to me screams "way too goddamn simple".

In any case I don't think centralization is such a bad thing. Straight up one-man dictatorial control over the economy is certainly overdoing it, but the Russian government was a mess for a good long time even before the Revolution, so.

[RGacky3]

It seems even the slightest power tends to centralize.

Bingo, and funnily enough the Capitalist and Leninist have very similar arguments, the Capitalist argues that competition will prevent centralization, the Leninist argues that worker interests will prevent centralization.

Its the same thing, we need to prevent unaccountable power, be it economic or political.


but the Russian government was a mess for a good long time even before the Revolution, so.

Thats a terrible excuse, whats the damn point of a revolution.

[#FF0000]

Bingo, and funnily enough the Capitalist and Leninist have very similar arguments, the Capitalist argues that competition will prevent centralization, the Leninist argues that worker interests will prevent centralization.

[citation needed]

[#FF0000]

Thats a terrible excuse, whats the damn point of a revolution.

Oh, yeah, I don't really remember what I was trying to get at in that post so I can't really respond to this.

[Glenn Beck]

That was the way both the United States and the USSR were supposed to be when they were created. It seems even the slightest power tends to centralize.

Oh god you are so right, anything short of absolute perfection in social organization is totally worthless and it's all the same as everything else.

I think you're finally ready to be unrestricted.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh god you are so right, anything short of absolute perfection in social organization is totally worthless and it's all the same as everything else.

I think you're finally ready to be unrestricted.

:D Not ready at all!

I rather like the messiness--that's why I'm a Social Democrat...;)

[RED DAVE]

I do not support Marxism as the better system for the United States based on the above comparisons. I desire to live under the Order of Enoch instead of the Order of Marx and Weishaupt. You all, of course, must choose which Order is better for you to live under.Question: are you crazy or stupid?

RED DAVE

[LeftSideDown]

Anyone else thinking this Order of Enoch sounds kinda like what we have today in America?

[#FF0000]

Anyone else thinking this Order of Enoch sounds kinda like what we have today in America?

Yeah, it sounds exactly like modern capitalism.

[Argument]

Instead of just making fun of him, why not try to counter his arguments? If they truly are as bad as you say, it shouldn't be too hard.

[Dean]

Instead of just making fun of him, why not try to counter his arguments? If they truly are as bad as you say, it shouldn't be too hard.

Many of us have provided good responses, it doesn't appear that he has responded to us yet.

[EltonJ]

Uh, so after all that shit about slavery and states you want us to entrust the distribution of all property to a church?

You can take your property (in this case, land) out of the entire system. No one is forcing you to participate.

[#FF0000]

You can take your property (in this case, land) out of the entire system. No one is forcing you to participate.

Yeah, you know, people who support the capitalist system say that a lot but historically speaking, people who don't play ball with big money tend to have terrible "accidents".

[EltonJ]

Obama is not a marxist. Most marxists view him as a right-winger. In Europe, he would be considered to be a right-centrist politician. The Swedish conservative party is probably on the left of Obama.

Moreover, I haven't seen anyone here advocating that your underwear, your TV, your car or other personal belongings would be public property. What people here want is for factories, farms, infrastructure and research to be collectively owned, operated and used for the general good of society.

Neither did Joseph Smith. The prophet of the Restoration did write in his Diary: "I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd Chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock (in private belongings). In Nauvoo everyone is steward over his own."

However, a lot of professors in Christian Universities confuse the Order of Enoch with communism and have been teaching their students that what the Early Christians practiced was communism. A lot of students, not having any kind of a token education in the Manifesto, seems to think that all privatizing of property should be abolished.

The idea behind this order is that you hold your private property, but you can make voluntary contributions of your property to the common good. Take Nina Paley's Sita Sings the Blues for example. She released the film under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License. She didn't exactly release it into the public domain, but that is about as public domain one can get with the current copyright system.

Under this order, she could and rightfully can, impose a Copyright -- or a right to have an intellectual monopoly over her work. But she could still pass it into the common good, allowing other artists to build on her work as long as they recognize her as the maker of the film. She keeps her monopoly over her good name and the desire to have credit while allowing derivative works.

You guys want factories, farms, infrastructure, and research to be collectively owned. I have nothing against that. However, the Governments of such systems you advocate tend to include people in that list. For your system to work perfectly, you really need an idealistic leader who knows and practices all Truth. Otherwise, you have a dictatorship. And yes, Research really should be free -- Science is advanced when scientists freely share their work with each other. When scientists can't, we have Alchemy all over again.

[EltonJ]

Yeah, you know, people who support the capitalist system say that a lot but historically speaking, people who don't play ball with big money tend to have terrible "accidents".

Nina Paley is still alive and kicking. And she's still advocating copyright abolishment and reform. She is still making films. And she didn't play ball with "Big Media" except in the fiasco where she found that she had to pay a lot of record companies for using Annette Hanshaw's recordings.

[#FF0000]

Nina Paley is still alive and kicking. And she's still advocating copyright abolishment and reform. She is still making films. And she didn't play ball with "Big Media" except in the fiasco where she found that she had to pay a lot of record companies for using Annette Hanshaw's recordings.

I was talking more along the lines of Iran nationalizing their oil industry in the 50's, or any Latin American country trying to do anything ever.

[EltonJ]

Question: are you crazy or stupid?

RED DAVE

Are you trying to be funny, or are you serious?

[EltonJ]

I was talking more along the lines of Iran nationalizing their oil industry in the 50's, or any Latin American country trying to do anything ever.

Ah yes. I know all about that. The cases you've mentioned are prevented by the Moneychangers. Who, I think, are worse.

[EltonJ]

Many of us have provided good responses, it doesn't appear that he has responded to us yet.

I've been working on other projects.

[EltonJ]

Yeah, it sounds exactly like modern capitalism.

Do you jointly own your water company, do you jointly own your ISP? Do you jointly own your electric company? Do you jointly own your local gas company? How much of our Culture is in the public domain?

Under the order, every business that has to be a monopoly will be collectively owned.

[IcarusAngel]

Yeah, it sounds exactly like modern capitalism.

Lol. Nicely played.

[IcarusAngel]

I thought the Mormon God was Elohim?

First, the God Makers:
7q6brMrFw0E

Second, Mormon anarchism:

http://www.themormonworker.org/articles/issue1/an_introduction_to_mormon_anarchism.php

(if you have crazy personal beliefs you can still have rational political beliefs.

[gorillafuck]

This sort of thinking is a serious threat to me and a plot I'm involved in. I'll need to alert the others immediately and book the next flight to the Denver Airport.

[RED DAVE]

For your system to work perfectly, you really need an idealistic leader who knows and practices all Truth. Are you crazy or stupid?

RED DAVE

[#FF0000]

Do you jointly own your water company, do you jointly own your ISP? Do you jointly own your electric company? Do you jointly own your local gas company? How much of our Culture is in the public domain?

Under the order, every business that has to be a monopoly will be collectively owned.

Why not collectivize all factories and farms, though?

[EltonJ]

Why not collectivize all factories and farms, though?

That would actually depend on the person starting the factory or operating the farm. If he gifted it to the community, then the community can operate the factory. IF he wanted to still own the factory as a private industry, he can do so. You can't forcefully put a factory under collective rule under this system.

[EltonJ]

I thought the Mormon God was Elohim

The Elohim? Yes and no. The being you are talking about is given the Title Michael, or the Creator. We do honor Michael and the Christ, but they were never meant to be our gods. The God we actually worship, but made in our own image, happens to be the e in e=mc2. It also goes by names such as the Spirit, the Orgone Energy, the Unified Energy Field, and Ruach Hakkodesh.

Which lead us into the Law of Attraction and the Law of the Harvest. Which is another subject. Which would blow all of you away if you actually think of the implications between these two Laws.

[Invincible Summer]

I thought proselytizing was prohibited on Revleft? Get this pretentious preachy shit out of here.

[RED DAVE]

The Elohim? Yes and no. The being you are talking about is given the Title Michael, or the Creator. We do honor Michael and the Christ, but they were never meant to be our gods. The God we actually worship, but made in our own image, happens to be the e in e=mc2. It also goes by names such as the Spirit, the Orgone Energy, the Unified Energy Field, and Ruach Hakkodesh.

Which lead us into the Law of Attraction and the Law of the Harvest. Which is another subject. Which would blow all of you away if you actually think of the implications between these two Laws.What is your position on the trade union question?

RED DAVE

[#FF0000]

That would actually depend on the person starting the factory or operating the farm. If he gifted it to the community, then the community can operate the factory. IF he wanted to still own the factory as a private industry, he can do so. You can't forcefully put a factory under collective rule under this system.

Unless it's a utility, though, like water, electricity, and apparently internet and fuel, right? Why can those be collectivized by the state but others can't be?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The Elohim? Yes and no. The being you are talking about is given the Title Michael, or the Creator. We do honor Michael and the Christ, but they were never meant to be our gods. The God we actually worship, but made in our own image, happens to be the e in e=mc2. It also goes by names such as the Spirit, the Orgone Energy, the Unified Energy Field, and Ruach Hakkodesh.

Which lead us into the Law of Attraction and the Law of the Harvest. Which is another subject. Which would blow all of you away if you actually think of the implications between these two Laws.

The "idealistic leader" you mentioned earlier would be the workers themselves. Otherwise the system you're describing is capitalism, w/all the injustices of capitalism.

I am curious, you are a Mormon? How did you get interested in Wilhelm Reich and new age stuff?