3 ms·
As often happens in discussions of political and economic systems, you're comparing an idealized concept of one side to the history of the other side; of course
by 0xcde4c3db 7y ago
As often happens in discussions of political and economic systems, you're comparing an idealized concept of one side to the history of the other side; of course the history side looks worse.
ETA: it occurs to me that there's a parallel here to the fundamental attribution error: my favorite system has flaws because its fundamental principles haven't been fully realized, while other systems have flaws because their fundamental principles are bad. Anyway, it's a pattern to watch out for.
- wincy 7y agoI think (but might be wrong) that Mormons did live the law of consecration when they first settled in Utah. Found a link about the United Order in the early church. Sorta worked? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order
- lcall 7y agoThe law of consecration has been tried, so there is history: while pioneers were crossing the plains (common efforts to care for the migrating poor, planting crops other later travelers would harvest, etc), one source being a somewhat new book "Saints", new chapters of Vol. 2 still being released, with citations to much source material. Also, Orderville (wikipedia references include Orderville, United Order, and Law of Consecration). There are probably others. Edit: none of this says people are perfect, but that this aspect of Christianity is very different from communism. (I had a whole semester class on Stalin, and also some limited reading since.)