[MD] Commie Talk and USA bashing?

[Platt Holden]

> > Platt previously:
> > Do you think Pirsig understood "real socialism" when he wrote about it
> in
> > Lila?
> 
> > woods previously:
> >     I see your point, but do you see Pirsig's point?  I thought
> socialism
> > according to what Pirsig wrote was an intellectual pattern and 
> > capitalism is a social patten.  
> 
> Platt:
> I think this was Pirsig's point:
> "From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism. It's
> a higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not 
> just a society that is guided by mindless traditions. That's what gives 
> socialism its drive. But what the socialists left out and what has all but
> killed their whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite 
> Dynamic Quality." (Lila, 17)
> 
> 
> Platt continues:
> I would quibble with Pirsig about capitalism not being intellectually 
> guided society because wealth is a product of man's capacity to think.
> 
> woods:
>     That's what I think Chris is trying to point here.  When one argues
> using Pirsig's 
> quotes they aren't wholly showing their hand.  You can bring up Pirsig's
> quotes 
> but you would need to also show, as you do here, what your view of these
> quotes are.  
> This is important, as we see above, for you don't support Pirsig's point
> here.  I respect that, 
> but you need to be transparent about this, which you were here, above.

When I quote Pirsig without comment it means I agree with the quote. 
If I have a something to add, I will. 
 
> Platt:
>     Nevertheless, he's right about apologists for the free market having
> no 
> concept of Dynamic Quality.
> 
> woods:
>    What do you mean here?  I looked up "apologists", but I'm having
> difficulty 
> understanding this sentence.  Sorry, my fault.

An "apologist" is someone who argues to defend an ideology.

> Platt:
>     But who does? Certainly not Marxists.  

> woods:
>     Hey, I'm not fully gettin' the Marxist stuff.  I'm not fully gettin'
> the U.S. free market stuff.  I'm for 
> something more moral than the two of these.  I understand the dynamic
> aspect in this line of 
> thinking.  I understand what Chris is trying to say, maybe.  As I asked of
> him, and hopefully 
> he gets back to me on this.  I'm wondering if Chris is arguing against the
> way the U.S. used 
> the free market.  The U.S. killed the free market long ago.  I don't know
> the history on this, but 
> I'm involved in the understanding that the monetary system is not the only
> way.  Self-reliance anybody...

I'm with you on self-reliance, like Pirsig said, " . . . by individuals 
making Quality decisions, and that's all."

I'm sure we'll all be interested in your conclusions about ways to 
facilitate exchanges of goods and services through some means other than a
monetary system. 

Platt