Much of the discussion as to what constitutes socialism - a still
imaginary reality, to be constituted at some future point - is
important, if we are serious about changing the world. But much of it
also seems like the philosophy class discussing whether or not the
classsroom really exists. Hello?

The differences seem to be over definitions that can sound biblical or
religious, based on faith, vision or confusion, given the bias of the
person reading, if not writing. But there does seem to be a gap between
concepts of democracy, whether they are called socialist, anarchist ,
capitalist or whatever.

Some seem to believe in the democracy of the consumer - I buy, therefore
I govern - while others opt for democracy of the producer - which I find
a little closer to the ideal - but left out is the total lack of any
such thing under present rules of capital, whether global, local,
familial, religious or atheistic.

Finally, one last opinion: any society that expends millions, really
billions, to feed its dogs and cats, and see to their health care, while
denying a job or a dwelling place or a medical care visit to even one
person in that society, is a diseased and screwed up place that needs
serious social change. I believe it is capitalism which helps breed that
kind of social idiocy - among decent, even loving individual humans who
wouldn't dream of hurting another human, in a conscious, material and
individual act. But if such a place called itself socialist, anarchist,
christic or judaic, it would still be a diseased place in need of
serious social change.

fs