Endless confusion has resulted from the re-definition of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism". by Dan Clore
(libertarian)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Socialism and Capitalism
by Dan Clore
One must be careful to make one's intended meaning known when using the terms "socialism" and "capitalism" (as well as related terms) because they have undergone polemic re-definition over the decades that can cause a great deal of confusion.
In the traditional sense, "capitalism" means the ownership and control of the means of production by a class of "capitalists" (in the traditional sense, the owners of capital, or means of production used by workers other than the capitalists/owners themselves) and an economic and political system that favors this.
In the traditional sense, "socialism" means the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives, communal groups, or through the state, and an economic and political system that favors this. One should note that this does not necessarily mean by the people as a whole, nor does it necessarily mean state ownership, nor does it necessarily imply a non-market form of organization; historically, anarcho-individualism (e.g., in the free-market form advocated by Benjamin Tucker) has been an important form of socialism.
In the later re-definition, "capitalism" means the private (non-government) ownership of the means of production, and more generally the absence of central planning by the state.
In the later re-definition, "socialism" means the ownership and control of the means of production by the people as a whole, generally by means of the state, or simply the ownership and control of the means of production by the state, or more broadly any form of central planning by the state.
Matters have become especially confused because these terms have been used in ways that include both the traditional sense and the later re-definition of the terms. Thus, Marxist-Leninists will define "socialism" in the traditional sense, but at the same time refer to examples of "socialism" in the later re-definition, in order to gain support for totalitarian Bolshevik regimes that actually destroy any examples of "socialism" in the traditional sense. Likewise, their "capitalist" opponents will do the same, in order to support the belief that There Is No Alternative (TINA) to "capitalism" other than a tyrannic despotism. (In this connection, one should note that according to Marx and Engels, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism/communism, which will not exist until the state has withered away to nothing.)
In the same way, advocates of "capitalism" will define the term with the later re-definition, but actually refer to concrete examples that instead fit the original sense, even citing dictatorships such as Pinochet's in Chile as positive examples. And just as with "socialism", some opponents of "capitalism" will do likewise in order to discredit it in the sense of the later re-definition. At present, state-corporate globalization, in which there is rule by states, corporations, international financial institutions (IFIs), and the like, is the typical form of "capitalism" actually advocated by most avowed capitalists, rather than a truly free market. This effectively means that there are (at the least) three common usages of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism", and so it behoves one to make clear in what sense one is using these and related terms, and to what empirical examples one refers.
One should also note the term "state-capitalism", used by socialists (in the traditional sense) to refer to state ownership and control of the means of production in varying degrees ranging from capitalist dictatorships such as Pinochet's through to Marxist-Leninist dictatorships such as the Bolshevik regimes. This extends the traditional sense of "capitalism", as the state (at least partially) replaces the traditional "private" capitalist class to varying degrees.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Dan Clore only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Dan Clore is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Dan it's a great piece, but my simple mind says being a Capitalist, is generally one who believes in private investment, ownership, and production as a free enterprise and the system is Capitalism. A Socialist, is generally one who believes in Public or community investments, ownership, and production as a member thereof, and the system is Socialism, one small step from Communism
Not more comments? You just elucidated what I have thought to be true for a long time! Bravo! As always, memetic engineering is just as crucial to understand as any other instrument of debate. In this case, the way we redefine words has caused arguments to take place on false causes.
I myself have long argued that socialism is not this nightmarish system that many hardcore libertarians decry it to be, the only distinction being that there is no element of "capital" in socialism. And you articulated it quite well. Again, splendid job.
I'm just curious if anyone can tell me why this article is so popular. It's by far the most popular of my own columns, getting many more hits than any other. And as I write, it's the most visited column on Nolan Chart for the past two days.
I do think that I did a good job explaining something that needs to be explained, to clear up popular misconceptions.
But I've written other columns that I think deserve as much attention as this one.
While there may be technical differences between these "isms", I don't think people want to go there mentally. They might not think it matters much.
On another site a "progressive" was explaining a tea party event he attended and saw a sign "No to socialism" which angered him. He asked the woman "do you even know what socialism is" ? The woman replied "No! And I don't want to know". Which angered him more. He wanted to choke her. She was "stupid".
I think most people know socialism means shared work and shared wealth, seen over by some group. Most people in this country do not believe in that. They know instinctively that this system ends up corrupted and eventually fewer and fewer people do the work for the shared wealth. The cadre at the top do fine, the rest of the people share the misery.
As that russian worker once said "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work".
Yes I know that was Communism.....it holds true for the other socialism. IMO.
Socialism does not mean shared work and wealth overseen by "some group" unless its run by the state, which isnt much different than working for someone else, having no say in the decisions that effect your life and being subject to economic coercian.Whether the rule makers are a small group of rich people or a government or a government controlled by a small group of rich people makes little difference to me.Anarchist socialism can manifest in as many different forms as the people involved set about to organizing themselves."Shared wealth" is also misleading, giving people the idea that there is no personal property,which is untrue.You can have a town library and still own your own books.If I'm working in a collective company and my fellow work associates and I decide to create a healthcare package for ourselves we actually have more say on the nature of that package than if I'm waiting for or demanding a handout from a privately owned business.The difference between anarchist socialism and capitalism is that everybody gets to work for themselves in as much as they have more of a say in the decisions that effect their lives while being a part of, rather than subjected to, economics.Perhaps a new word like free market socialism is in order.Another difference is that under capitalism hoarding excessively is often considered necessary and encouraged even though it contributes to an unhealthy social and political atmosphere and while I've heard every reason and excuse in the book as to why this is a good and just darwinian way to do things I've never understood why creating an envirenment that encourages using the excess created in one area to help other areas prosper, which would benefit us all, in the long run, is such a bad thing.I guess if your goal is to impoversh more than 1/2 the world so you can better take advantage of them then maybe it is a bad thing.Also, when profit is the only motive worth speaking of we tend to end up with lots of cheap and useless "stuff" and brilliant minds end up being funneled towards whatever is profitable at the time, rather than letting free and creative association determine one's creative future-unless your rich or are good at begging from the rich,which essentually capitalism does to the vast majority of people in the world,makes beggars of them.I'd like to live in a world where my education as well as libraries and other non-profit commons can be obtained without begging some rich foundation or asking for government welfare, secure in my knowledge that my labor and other contributions are worth more than the crumbs we currently compete for.Another myth I'd like to dispell is the myth that one can't operate independantly,you can be an independant artisan or whatever of any kind if you'd like, however if your goal is to own a piece of land the size of texas and make wage slaves of the people that live on that land you may find that what you call freedom and what they call freedom are two different things.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2010-01-08 10:16:41
A great article. I cringe every time I hear Rush or Hannity espouse the wonders of capitalism. They mean the free market, but when they use the Marxist term "capitalism" they walk right into a hail storm of hot steel.
JAK and others: Pardon me for my stating FACTS and not my opinion. Having lived through 'the Depression', WW11, and everything after, second generation American, may I say we can do without all you smart alecks with your semantics ,theories, and biases.My grandparents did not come over on the Mayflower but as dirt poor immigrants seeking a life with at least opportunity not available in 'the old country' They suffered REAL discrimination, and hardship for many years. However it was the sacrifices of those people who made it possible for today's cry babies, beginning with the Woodstock Generation of rabble to have the 'right' to tear down the country in the name of some 'freedom' or other. You who fancy yourselves 'intellectuals' who must 'educate' the rest of us ...from politics, to 'isms', to creating a 'movement' for the purpose of educating the masses in proper eating habits...ostensibly to protect our kids from 'THE SINGLE GREATEST THREAT TO THEIR FUTURE'!!, [we] understand the difference between socialism, communism, capitalism, and we are aware that it was capitalism which created the best [although not without flaws] system ever devised. So why don't you take your theories and your comrades and get on a slow [leaky] boat to hell. Grandmother in PA
JAK and others: Pardon me for my stating FACTS and not my opinion. Having lived through 'the Depression', WW11, and everything after, second generation American, may I say we can do without all you smart alecks with your semantics ,theories, and biases.My grandparents did not come over on the Mayflower but as dirt poor immigrants seeking a life with at least opportunity not available in 'the old country' They suffered REAL discrimination, and hardship for many years. However it was the sacrifices of those people who made it possible for today's cry babies, beginning with the Woodstock Generation of rabble to have the 'right' to tear down the country in the name of some 'freedom' or other. You who fancy yourselves 'intellectuals' who must 'educate' the rest of us ...from politics, to 'isms', to creating a 'movement' for the purpose of educating the masses in proper eating habits...ostensibly to protect our kids from 'THE SINGLE GREATEST THREAT TO THEIR FUTURE'!!, [we] understand the difference between socialism, communism, capitalism, and we are aware that it was capitalism which created the best [although not without flaws] system ever devised. So why don't you take your theories and your comrades and get on a slow [leaky] boat to hell. Grandmother in PA
You do an excellent job of pointing out the need to define these terms before they are thrown around accusing people of one thing or another, and defending systems they in truth don't want to defend. I believe in a truly free market, going beyond a capitalist system and where every individual is free to make their own economic decisions without impediment from other individuals or organizations. Such a free market system is closer to "socialism", the system where power is in the hands of the workers, than the many attempts at socialism that have taken place during the last century. Both concepts, however, do not describe individual liberty as strongly as a truly free market.
wow, simply amazing. I think you nailed it, great article.
People cringe at the mention of socialism, and in my experience, they have little to no clue what it is, they think they do, but really its the same old B.S. being spewed on tv and movies.
Amelia, you have stated very little facts, more so an observation. American immigrants were not the only ones to struggle, and it's kind of funny that they did struggle under a system that you defend and call the best. Being able to clearly define the 'isms' and understand the history on these systems is a great thing. I believe humanity should be well educated and articulate as so we can see things more clearly and be free. I believe all systems work and all are flawed equally. I personally do not like when a definition gets distorted or transvalued. I am sick of people who ignorantly regard socialism and capitalism. Let's just say it requires much thought when discussed. And for anyone else out there who wants to send scholars, intellectuals and thinkers to hell, I pity you.
Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2010-03-27 13:22:47
Though I don't necessarily agree with the author's specific definitions of "traditional" and "re-definition" of capitalism, socialism, and communism, I wholehearedly agree that there have been widely varying uses of these terms, both over time, and at the same time by various people.
I have always used "capitalism" to mean private ownership of the means of production, and socialism and communism to mean "common or public ownership of the means of production".
However, even the word "public" has meant different things over time and different things to various people at the same time. The local supermarket is "public" in the sense that it "open to the public", but it is "private" in that it is private property, and privately operated.
Some libertarians want to get away from using "Capitalism" because it is accepted to mean "corporate/state" partnership . . . i.e. the oligarchy in place today. I call that corporatism or state capitalism. Others, like Sheldon, Richman, Gary Chartier and Brad Spangler want to get away from using "capitalism", and actually are promoting "anti-capitalism" because it (allegedly) stresses or focuses on the "capitalist", at the detriment of labor as a necessary element of production. Walter Block, and other Austrian economists disagree. Instead "capitalism", Block asserts, correctly defines and describes the free market, private property, voluntary economics of laissez-faire.
So, even within libertarian ranks, there is disagreement of the terms and arrangements supported.
I personally support USING the term capitalism and socialism as Ludwig von Mises, and subsequent Austrian economists use them. That is, "private" ownership vs "public or common" ownership of the means of production, with the associated phrases "private property" and "public property" respectively. Public, in this sense means state/government ownership, which allegedly means ALL OF US (i.e., common).
That all said, I think maybe the answer lies in embracing Mary Ruwart's characterizations, by saying that libertarians (and people in general) ought to simply "honor their neighbor's choices". Nearly universally, "choice" means freedom, and freedom means free to flourish or fail by one's choices. With such a characterization, I fail to see how there can be ANY misunderstanding!
Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2010-03-27 13:39:47
Virtually everything jak says above is B.S. and indicates a bias against successful people who, through market choices, entice laborers to work in THEIR firm. If such workers prefer to work in their OWN enterprise, that is a choice that is ALWAYS available to them.
jak uses phrases like "I guess if your goal is to impoversh more than 1/2 the world so you can better take advantage of them", and "if your goal is to own a piece of land the size of texas and make wage slaves of the people that live on that land", AS IF SUCH ENTREPRENEUR'S GOALS ARE TO IMPOVERISH AND TREAT LABORERS LIKE SLAVES! jak exhibits the typical envy of success syndrome. Such envy IMO never leads to advocation freedom. It always leads to the formation of the state and coercion, because egalitarianism is the goal, not liberty. Sorry jak, liberty DOES lead to people achieving different results in life. Deal with it, because even WITH the state, disparity ensues anyway as the politically connected get the goods, and those who aren't, don't.
The terms "private" and "public" have almost as tangled a history as "socialism" and "capitalism". As regards "private" and "public" property in relation to capitalism vs socialism, originally, "private" property didn't just mean non-government ownership, but had connotations of privilege and exclusivity. I.e., a class of capitalists from which most workers were excluded. (Think of a "private" country club for a related usage.) "Public" property, on the other hand, meant property owned by the people -- something rather easy to distinguish from state ownership, though the two of course became confounded. The early anarchist-socialist Bakunin pointed out that it would be no consolation to the people if the stick the state beat them with was labeled the "people's stick". Also note that ownership by the people need not be collective.
As to Mises, I've been looking at his work and may have more to say about his use of the terms in another column.
Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2010-03-27 14:26:22
Dan, I hear what you're saying, but there IS a difference between the MEANING (or definition) of a word, term or phrase and the CONNOTATION of it. The fact (and I don't deny it) that the connotation of "private" was/is "exclusivity" and "privilege" is simply a function of a value judgment and subsequent emotion (in this case, envy) that people place on the arrangement, not definition of the word or term itself.
Economics is value-free. Thus, there is no place for such "connotative" value judgments in it. Others are free to be envious of those who exhibit (in their minds) privilege and exclusivity, but it doesn't belong in the discussion of the economics of capitalism and socialism.
In political philosophy however, those who use the connotation of private in such a way as you describe, are properly classified as egalitarians, who are envious of those who have more than others. When the free society doesn't produce the egaliatarian conditions they seek, then they turn to (or create) a state to "correct" the disparity. The state then, creates it's own disparity . . . those who are politically connected to the state, and those who aren't.
(1) Historically, in the real world, capitalists have always used the state in a myriad ways to create, maintain, and expand their privileged, exclusive position as owners of capital, leaving others forced to work for them. Market anarchists and libertarians have written mountains of material documenting this; it isn't just a feeling on the part of the poor.
(2) It is therefore clearly fallacious to attribute recognition of this fact to envy on the part of the poor. When peasants are dispossessed of their land so that they have no choice but to take sweatshop jobs at bare subsistence wages, the reason they dislike this isn't because they feel "envious" of their corporate employers. (It's also generally a very bad idea to predicate one's arguments on claims that would require mind-reading.)
(3) I do not know what "free society" you are referring to; no free capitalist society has ever existed, that's for certain.
(4) Finally, there have been many, many anarchists who have sought to create egalitarian conditions by abolishing the state and engaging in voluntary self-organization.
Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2010-03-27 21:21:54
Dan, I'm glad you clarified your position. You're a collectivist who thinks that "force" means that when others choose to do with their own private property that others don't like, that's force.
Utopian idealists like yourself will continue to believe that a rising standard of living can be achieved without accumulation and implememtation of capital . . . that hierarchy can be abolished, and that capitalism means someone is exploited, all WITHOUT the existence of the state. Dream on . . . and continue to be deluded of your utopian dreams of a perfect world where everyone is happy, and no one ever gets sick, and profits are not a necessary incentive for economic progress.
Let's agree to abolish the state, and people can do what they will from an enterprising standpoint. I have very little doubt that capitalism operating in a voluntary social order will prevail. People will be free to work for others, or work for themselves, and pursue what ever it is of value to pursue. If you don't like that, and I'm sure you don't, then I bet people of your mindset will propose that a state "remedy" the inequality.
One thing is absolutely clear though . . . you are a collectivist of the socialist variety. Ultimately, your goals can only be achieved through a coercive state, which you porport to want to abolish.
NOTE: I also hve no doubt that you will attempt to refute what I say, but no matter . . . I've crossed the path of many, many people who express the same things you do. I KNOW the M.O.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-16 09:44:07
I'm afraid that I cannot refute what you say
Wise choice; lying is never a good habit to get into, and the only way you could refute him would be to lie.
Historically, in the real world, capitalists have always used the state in a myriad ways to create, maintain, and expand their privilege ... it isn't just a feeling on the part of the poor
While true, this is entirely irrelevant.
The folks you call "capitalists" when referring to capitalistic societies are called "cronies" when referring to other types of societies [and when referring to them as politely as possible]. Their way of doin' bidness is the same in both places.
The primary difference is that in a capitalistic society, the capitalist cannot exist without the patronage of the hoi polloi - whom he and other capitalists employ for wages that they turn around and use to buy the stuff they and other employees make. The capitalist has an incentive in a society with stable population to pay reasonably well.
In "other" societies, the crony's livelihood is not dependent on the riff-raff, but on his connection with the despot in charge. He has no incentive in any demographic condition to pay well. He has the incentive to pay poorly, in actual fact. Money is power, and money in the hands of the masses in a despotic nation is a threat to the power establishment; the power establishment is what put the crony in the position he is in - to "use the power of the state to create, maintain and expand his privilege" - and to threaten the power of the state would be to threaten his own existence.
You'll notice the wage levels between relatively "free" societies and those which are not.
No matter the sins of Capitalism you wish to expound upon, the sins of non-capitalism are greater.
People really try to make this complicated don't they? I think they do so because some are so narrow minded that they think only "highly educated" people with broad vocabularies can understand the difference, and thus try to pull the wool over the eyes of those who disagree.
It's a very simple thing. America broke free of the chains of socialism and our founding fathers made it all quite clear in the Constitution. America is a FREE, DEMOCRATIC and CAPITALIST country. Always has been, and should remain so. Any person who doesn't like capitalism either needs to accept it or MOVE. Pretty simple.
Socialism does not work, it never has. In order for socialism to work, EVERYONE must be for it - but in America, that will never happen. However, capitalism works even if half the people don't like it. Flawed & imperfect yes, but it still works. All one has to do is look through history.
Instead of trying to impress with intellect, I suggest more people use just plain common sense. All the education on earth does you no good if you refuse to learn from histories mistakes.
FACT: thousands have died and are willing to die in order to keep my country totally free. I've yet to meet a socialist with the same love & loyalty. They're willing to subjugate & let others suffer, but not themselves.
BTW: I'm educated too, but found it's easier to get a message across by speaking on equal terms, rather than subconsciously or purposely trying impress with fancy synonyms.
Socialism = tyranny. Capitalism = freedom. 'Nuff said.
“LDS Church attempts to influence Deseret News readers have sometimes backfired. During the 1936 presidential campaign, LDS Church President Heber J. Grant (who detested the Democrats’ New Deal policies) had another member of the Church’s First Presidency write an unsigned editorial accusing Franklin D. Roosevelt of ‘knowingly promoting unconstitutional laws and... advocating communism,’ among other things. The editorial outraged Mormon voters. Many saw the conservative hand of the Church presidency in the editorial; over seventy percent of the letters sent to the First Presidency office soon after its publication condemned the editorial. One historian noted that over 1,200 Latter-day Saints canceled their subscriptions to the Deseret News because of the editorial. It had clearly caused a backlash, and a few days after its publication, 69.3 percent of Utah’s votes went for Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal (see D. Michael Quinn, J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years, p. 75).”
They wanted to abolish slavery, but only after a thorough attempt to convince slave owners to change their abusive treatment and their superstitions about race which extended far beyond that of non-slave owners. (in otherwords, they wanted to do away with oppressive white supremecist traditions for the betterment of the blacks)
Mormons had the United Order. More specifically, they had voluntary communalism. The church organization with it's flexible and redundant all-volunteer leadership was used to serve as the apparatus for the dispensment of resources. 100% Tithes. You could leave the system when ever you wanted, although you wouldn't get your money back. :) lol SCAMMED! (but not intentionally)
Eventually their attempts failed, and they returned to Capitalism. They have defended it ever since by describing Socialist/Communist as Criminals in a Global Syndicate. They likened Socialists/Communists/Marxists to "The Gadianton Robbers" in the Book of Mormon.
Dan, I am against the centralization of power as well. But Marxism is far more dangerous. Once they get hold, they have direct power of government to enforce their rule.
Croney Capitalists are fewer in number and are more easily fended off. They have to protect themselves from other Capitalists. :). The individual worker is the real source of power. This is why Non-Pension Pro-Competition oriented Unions are potentially good tools to check the centralization of power. Although they are too often misused because of inside corruption. Socialists have their plans too. In all intellectual honesty, it is more difficult to change the attitude of 100 unified people than it is to change the attitude of a single individual.
Joseph Smith himself warned most ardently against Mobocracies moreso than Government. The Mob controls the Government far more relentlessly than Capitalists who must go through the Mob in order to control the Government.
We are a Constitutional Republic btw. :) Representative Democracy is only one small element of our government. So please keep in mind the other elements of The U.S. Constitution that protect the minority (the Individual) from the majority (the Mob). Because Joseph Smith was killed by one. The Mormons were exterminated and exiled by a Mob Ruled State!
Dan, The LDS Church does not organize unions. It is a union in its own right. It has all volunteers w/ no pension plans and it does not use Tithing for business purposes.
Tithing itself in my honest opinion doesn't always need to be given through the Church if the Individual can more directly use their powers to serve God's purpose - To bring to pass the Eternal Life and Salvation of Man.
And any True Mormon, Christian, Jew or Muslim would know that Forced Charity is not of God and is Satanic in nature. The LDS Church advocates the individual to be charitable RIGHT THEN AND THERE when they are prompted by the holy spirit. They never encourage a mentality of "Risk Distribution" which eventually leads to "Wealth Redistribution".
I fall into the mutualist camp. Its a form of libertarian socialism that is a voluntary free market system that recognizes private property. Mutalists believe in a free market economy made of artisans, sole propertiors, partnerships, and cooperatives. The primary difference between capitalism and mutualism is that for large scale businesses it seeks worker cooperatives owned by the workers rather then a capitalistic corporation where the business is owned by a few stock holders and labor is employed for a wage. Its a voluntary system and does not seek to impose itself by force. Cooperatives are more democratic, egalitarian, and give workers an ownership interest in the means of production. In terms of private property, it recognizes property based on possession of occupancy and/or use. Genuine labor whether physical or mental gives true value and is superior to wealth generated from rents, interest, and investments. I don't tend to use the "s" word (socialism) when talking with people because I think at this point its not productive. People automatically think of the Soviet Union or Cuba, or what Obama is trying to do, lol. I would probably be in agreement with 95% of the Libertarian Party Platform.
Posted By: Bruce Awishes
Date: 2010-07-03 08:31:36
I think the mutualist camp you describe is actually socialism. While retaining the concept of private property allowing for small business, why would we try to change the arrangement when the business gets large? I grant you that the bigger it gets the more social power it has. But corporations are sort of socialist if you think about it. Large corps have more than "a few" stockholders....most have many thousands. The big difference is they have to buy in, not get a part of the company through some welfare mechanism. Corps have annual stockholder meetings with voting rights and a formal protocol. So democracy, in a way, does exist. Let's keep private property and the human element of self-interest alive in every organization. It's too bad government can't harness it.
@jak: I like what you said , not all of it but the jist of it. Balance, i can stand with that. the rick with human nature is to try to avoid the extremes. tricky that. :)
how did the U.S. break free from the chains of socialism when socialism wasn't coined until 1832 when it was used to reference Robert Owen's communes? I believe the term you were looking for was monarchy.
All one has to do is look through history. Instead of trying to impress with intellect, I suggest more people use just plain common sense. All the education on earth does you no good if you refuse to learn from histories mistakes.
This is a great article. I'm surprised by a couple of people who just reasserted the "simple" definitions they were familiar with rather than having learned something from the article.
One person mentioned a "new term-- free market socialism" but wasn't market socialism the term used for the economic system in central Europe during the mid 20th century? So not so new...
I'm LDS and voting Ron Paul. This section from the doctrine & covenants, a book of scripture of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints, may be of interest to some:
Section 134
A declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, Ohio, 17 August 1835 (see History of the Church, 2:247–49). The occasion was a meeting of Church leaders, brought together to consider the proposed contents of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. At that time, this declaration was given the following preamble: “That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present, at the close of this volume, our opinion concerning the same†(History of the Church, 2:247).
1–4, Governments should preserve freedom of conscience and worship; 5–8, All men should uphold their governments and owe respect and deference to the law; 9–10, Religious societies should not exercise civil powers; 11–12, Men are justified in defending themselves and their property.
 1 We believe that agovernments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men baccountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
 2 We believe that no government can exist in apeace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the bfree exercise of cconscience, the right and control of property, and the dprotection of life.
 3 We believe that all governments necessarily require acivil bofficers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.
 4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of aworship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish bguilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
 5 We believe that all men are bound to asustain and uphold the respective bgovernments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and crebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.
 6 We believe that every man should be ahonored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the blaws all men owe crespect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.
 7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all acitizens in the free exercise of their religious bbelief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.
 8 We believe that the commission of crime should be apunished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public bpeace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing coffenders against good laws to punishment.
 9 We do not believe it just to amingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
 10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, aaccording to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has bauthority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.
 11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all awrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in bdefending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.
 12 We believe it just to apreach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bbond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in cservitude.
