[MD] Democracy

[Woods Woods]

> Chris:
> Indeed I do. Real socialism for me means real democracy. Real socialism to
> me means a society where people have the time and the means to fully
> exercise a intellectually guided democracy. I that isn't so, then it isn't a
> socialist society in my book.
 
> woods previously:
>    You have made the political intellectual pattern to mean only socialism.  No
> wonder you'll argue with others about this and others will argue with you. Each
> of you have different definitions of what socialism is.

Chris:
I have not made it to mean socialism. But by my definition of socialism, I have 
yet to hear a better program for intellectual level superiority. However, it is problematic, 
because to a lot of people, when I say I am a socialist, they will assign me a 
whole bunch of opinions that I don't hold. I believe in democracy, free speech, justice 
and all that stuff.  I don't believe in the necessity of a bloody revolution, I don't 
believe in oppression of differing opinions or any of that Stalinist stuff.
Perhaps the word socialism is too infected, perhaps I should invent a new one.


woods:
Maybe if you could make what you mean come out more significantly, so, 
I can understand what you mean.  You've defined a gov't so far, that could 
be represented by differing gov't's, and thus, why the need for socialism?


Chris:
What would be a good word for wanting to build a extensive welfare state with 
"radical" democracy? Because that is really what I am all about, I want to make 
democracy work by making it possible for people to understand what it is. 
To give them the time and the means to understand it. That's what a welfare 
state is Good for. So that people can feel safe and be able to develop themselves 
in whatever way they want. That way we can work towards a society where 
people needn't be so bound by social values, because they are liberated by 
being born into a society where realizing your potential and going after Quality 
is possible without the constant fear of failing and ending up on the streets or 
something like that.

woods:
    There is a lot in this.  If I have the intellectual patterns to continue, then I 
wouldn't mind parsing this.  I understand the fear aspect, but I wonder if 
it is really about not having a safety net and this holds people back?  Are 
you suggesting this?  Also, having people understand democracy would 
require value in the democracy and understanding that it is intellectual and 
thus, requires education.  This can, if valued highly enough, come from parents 
and others in society, but the value and understanding that a democracy 
is intellectual and doesn't run by itself without education stirring the ideas 
and understandings is lacking.  One hazard I perceive with "welfare state" is 
moral hazard.  It happens in banking all the time, and if people know 
they will not be penalized in some way if their pursuit didn't succeed, then 
people may actually risk even more - for there's that safety net to fall back on.  What 
do you think?  There could be degree's to this "welfare state" program, and maybe 
some already exist.  I don't know.


Chris:
You know, to make a shift from social values to intellectual ones as the most central, 
And make it easier to explore ANY form of Quality. That I believe is best done by building 
a society where, by providing the basic needs for everyone, the (social level motivated) 
hysteria which is the accumulation of wealth  hasn't got such a strong grip on people.

woods:
   The accumulation of wealth does have a strong grip on people.  It dominates society so 
much that it actually rids self-reliance - figure that one out.  It sounds ironic doesn't it, but 
along with hunting and gathering squeezed out, what if a community of people could 
care for themselves (such as the Lakota example I provided and the FBI comes in 
and makes them depend on the U.S. gov't), energy self-reliance, the fair tax I brought up, 
small family farms squeezed out by corporate farms, etc...

Chris:
What would you call it? 



woods:
I don't know.  I don't know if we've yet defined this "socialism" your talking about enough.


woods