Consecration (LDS church) v Communism

Introduction:

Karl Marx, and his sponsor/friend Friedrich Engels, published the Communist Manifesto in 1848. The Communist Manifesto tried to set up a divisionist world view - the view that two divisions or classes exist in society. Their first envisioned class is called the “Bourgeois,” ruling class of capital owners. Their second class is called the “Proletarians,” an oppressed working class who work for near slave-wages. The Bourgeois push their workers harder and harder, then extract all the excess profit that the Proletariats produce with their labor. But the Communist Manifesto argued that the Proletariats will eventually revolt and overthrow the oppressive Bourgeois when they realize these facts a fantastic chain of events to say the least. Further, there are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who claim that the “Law of Consecration” and Communism are one of the same. While there are similarities for the uninitiated, there are also enough differences that it cannot be reasonably said that Communism and Consecration are the same. There are two main issues that distinguish Communism from Consecration: (1) the result of Consecration is not a stateless society, as it appears to be under Communism, and (2) private property rights exist under Consecration but do not under Communism.

Organizational structure:

One major difference between the two systems is in their organizational structure, Typically, people need a strong institution to reorganize wealth and enforce laws. Without religion, this force is generally the government. With Consecration, the social change can come from pre-existing social structures (the Church), but with Communism, all real-life implementations of it suggest that the government must make radical changes with strong armed communist programs and propaganda. Under Marx’s original Communist ideal, the Communists would implement programs to bring about a final, stateless, and classless society with pure equality. He envisions that under a Communist regime: “in the course of [its] development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character” (Marx, 1848).
Ultimately, this will lead to a society without leaders and government, to be replaced with “an association” of the working class (Marx, 1848). This change to “an association,” would require significant political upheaval in every developed country in the world. It also stands in stark contrast to a Church running a reorganization effort among voluntary participants.

A valid criticism against the Law of Consecration could focus on flaws in its organizational system. If the entire system is run by Church leaders, it is not hard to see how the system could become corrupt - the result could be a religious ruling class, dispensing wealth to those in favor, and withholding wealth from those whose “wants” did not align with the goals of the religious elite. While, certainly a possibility, the voluntary nature of Consecration helps hedge against this outcome. Because Consecration is practiced among a religious community, rather than a political community, participants are much freer to leave the community if desired. Departure from a religious community usually requires simply a change in belief, not a change in location, as is usually required for separation from a political regime. There is also the concept that the religious leaders helping to guide Consecrated communities are led directly by God. Official Declaration 1 declares that the “The Lord will never permit me [Wilford Woodruff, fourth President of the LDS Church] or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.” If the Lord’s thoughts are indeed better than man’s and are implemented by people who are doing God’s will, then Consecrated communities should be largely incorruptible and just. In contrast, Karl Marx makes no claim to divine authority or direction and he certainly does not envision Communist communities being run by men or women who have divine guidance in their implementation of the regime. For the religious who believe “my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9), this may be a stark contrast indeed.

However, this contrast only applies if the Saints are truly following what God desires of them. If they seek after a corrupted system of God’s way, then perhaps, “[they] have no promise.” (D&C 82:10). With previous attempts to implement the Law of Consecration there have been misinterpretations and mismanaged attempts, deviating from the revelations Smith received. Several communities attempting to implement the Law of Consecration arose sometime after Smith’s revelations about the Law of Consecration, but these experimental communities differed in an important way from the Law of Consecration: they were less economically cooperative than was envisioned in revelation. In these communities (sometimes known as “United Orders”), Latter-day Saints received fair prices from other Latter-day Saints, but often engaged in price-gouging against gentiles. Further, Order members could choose to consecrate everything they owned, but it wasn't necessary to do so to be a part of the community.

straying from the Source Material:

This tendency to stray from the source material surprisingly appears in Communist communities as well. The most pertinent examples come from Russia and China under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Lenin and Stalin warped Marx’s writings to support their brand of state ran Communism. The Soviet Union’s “Iron Curtain” stands in stark contrast to the stateless society for which Marx so passionately advocated. Similarly, in China, Mao perverted Marx’s writings for application in China. The Great Revolution envisioned by Marx was between factory workers and the owners of the machines. In China however, most Communist revolutionaries were average farmers. In Marx’s vision, the source of inevitable conflict is more obvious than when applied to factory workers - the machinery factory workers relied on as their “means of production” was owned directly by the Bourgeois, and could be relatively easily confiscated from the workers, either by removing the machines themselves, or excluding the workers from the warehouses. In contrast, the land of the farmers in China could not be as easily taken from the farmers - excluding farmers from the land they farm requires armies, rather than keys to a warehouse door, and removing the land from the farmer requires more than trucks that can drive the machines away from the warehouse (indeed, it is not clear how one would remove land from a farmer - only removing the farmer from the land seems practical). Perhaps, both Communism and the Law of Consecration would have worked if their adherents had kept to their source and followed the format their leaders had planned. In practice however, communal organizations seem to eventually break down in favor of private property and capitalism.

The big one: Private Property Rights

However, the largest difference between Communism and the Law of Consecration is private property rights. Marx concludes Communism requires the “abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes” and the “confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels” (Marx, 1848). Essentially, private property rights are abolished, and everything is taken to organize the new distribution of wealth. In contrast, the Law of Consecration requires that everything be voluntarily given to the Church. Thereafter, both land and property are given back based upon the needs and wants of the individual, including what needs their profession may require of them. The property given back in this way is then the private property of the member of the community, and it is up to the individual to do with it as he pleases, as stated by J. Reuben Clark Jr. “There is nothing in the revelations that would indicate that this property was not freely alienable at the will of the owner.” It is this difference in how private property is handled that makes all the difference. Under “The Law of Consecration” there is still an incentive to keep producing and growing the figurative pie of community wealth. Private property still exists, and individuals can still stand to benefit as the pie grows. In a Consecrated community, at the end of each year, the individual is to assess the state of their private property and determine if any surplus exists - if they have any private property in excess of their needs and wants. If so, this excess is voluntarily donated to the Church, which then distributes this excess back into the community based on the rules that governed the first distribution of wealth. If any individual fails to produce enough to satisfy their needs and wants, it is hoped that the excess produced by others in the community will be sufficient to make up for the lack experienced by another. Under Communism however, the incentive to “grow the pie” simply does not exist in the same fashion. Everything individuals once owned belongs to the association now. There is no private property. Indeed, to reiterate, Marx required the “abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” All property becomes public. There is little clear incentive to produce, because anything you produce is not yours only, but is rightfully the property of everyone else in the community. If you bake a loaf of bread in a Communist community, your neighbor could rightfully come and demand a piece right there and then. In a Consecrated community, the neighbor could request a piece, but they have no legal right to demand a piece - if they find themselves lacking, their legal avenue of redress is the Bishop’s Storehouse, not their neighbor. Communism is therefore ripe for problems of free-riding, moral hazard, and reduced production. In a Communist society, it is an open question as to why you would bake bread when you know you have rightful claim to the bread of others. The incentive to produce is greatly reduced - whereas in a society of private property rights, there is an incentive to produce and a certain sense of pride in ownership. With private property rights, the individual is separated from their property only by their own free will - and even if their is a social expectation that much of an individual’s production will be freely given away, the sense of control over that decision is a clear difference between Communism and Consecration. Indeed, history suggests that this sense of control over one’s property is important to keep an economy working and producing. Little else has been shown to stimulate the productive and innovative power of man like self-interest and a desire to improve his property through work.

Conclusion:

While there are many similarities and differences between Communism and Consecration, the differences are more numerous than the similarities Both seem to strive for equality, and both have struggled to implement the pure ideas of their founders. But the end results could hardly be more different: one is focused on the complete restructuring of society into anarchy. While the other seeks to utilize existing frameworks to re-order the desires of individuals, and one seeks the complete abolition of private property while the other seeks to adjust on a yearly basis how private property could be voluntarily re-ordered among participants. Communism, as envisioned by Marx, is all about deep irreconcilable divisions, class conflict, and eventual revolution due to the very fabric of modern society, almost like a science. In contrast, Consecration purports to be a revelation from God focused on the unique needs and wants of individuals, but also recognizing the need for unity in crafting a common safety net from the voluntarily given excesses of the community. Hopefully, the idea of Consecration will be implemented properly and succeed, because it is a divine idea. But whatever the idea, it can only be as good as the people that practice it - if we truly desire a community of unity, equality, and prosperity, we need first look into ourselves. Only once we cleanse the inner vessel will we be prepared to live in such a utopian society.

Disclosure:
The above writing is mine. The picture attached is not mine.