Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00443)

Monday, March 31, 2003

Dear Friends:

In writing what I did I was referring to the ideal “communism”
and not to the Political communism which was an abuse of the
ideal with all the faults you mentioned.

[The Dictionary is WEBSTERS,.]

If there is a final general refinement of motive a veering from
the selfish to the virtuous, then “communism” as a filling of
needs will be general and fairly used and in force for all. How
else could true spirituality in practice operate on this plane?

It is quite true that an interior purity of values and virtues
will be primary. Exterior ‘communism’ will follow. It is not to
be enforced, but rather to be a way of life -- a quiet and
unostentatious virtue.

We have seen a travesty of true communism and it has sickened is
all, as it was transformed into a vehicle for tyranny and
denunciation. Those are evil characteristics.

H P B in one place calls communism and socialism “insane dreams.”
Should we wonder ?

Separately I have written a brief reply on the subject of animal
instinct as related to elephants, and attached to that was a
summary of one of H P B’s articles THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. It is an
important one and makes for careful consideration I think.

Best wishes,

Dallas

==============================


-----Original Message-----
From: Tatoorachael
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 6:50 PM
To:
Subject: [bn-study] Re: communism

A couple of notes on what has been written:

1-There is one main difference between the Communism of Marx and
Engels and that of various utopian societies including
Christians. The former is a system held together by compulsion,
the later one of free will.

2-The former works for a time because the state uses intimidation
and violence to enforce its programs, even so, the great "five
year plans" of the Soviets never achieved what they set out to.

3-In the later, the problem has always been human frailty. When
one person performs to his capacity but sees his neighbor
slacking off, the tendency is to do a little less. As more and
more are doing not according to their ability but rather as
little as they can get away with and still get what they need,
the system breaks down.

4-Tradition has it that the early Christians tried this. Acts
3:44-45 states: And all that believed were together, and had all
things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and
parted them to all men, as every man had need." Yet we no longer
here about this much past this time. Something went awry!

5-The early Mormons also tried this and I had several volumes
devoted to this program. As converts joined the Mormons they were
"gathered" into several central locations. They deeded all their
possessions to the local Bishop and received a "stewardship"
according to their needs. This was called the Law of Consecration
and Stewardship. Each year there was to be a review and if one
underutilized what was deeded him, the excess was turned back
over to the Bishop to be given to one who had achieved his goals
and still had time and energy for more. This program fell apart
rather quickly due to both persecution and defection. It was
tried later in Utah as the United Order but again was given up
due to those same problems of human frailty.


cut



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]