Forms of Freedom

[Joby]

As we've discussed elsewhere, there are different types of freedom. Is socialism the belief of economic control by the masses, or is it also for political control of he nation by the masses?

Obviously, with 1% controlling most economic power, 100% holding the political power means little in the age of the mass media (thank god for the net).

But isn't a system in which we would give all the political power to 1% in order to achieve balance of economic power just as dangerous and, in which case, we would still be "slaves" of one sort in another? Is it not un-socialistic to give any form of control to a minority and not to the masses?

[RNK]

Well, 100% don't own political power, and never have. It's an unfortunate fact that even in the age of democracy there are still plenty of ways for a priviledged few to coerce and manipulate the underpriviledged many. Economic freedom means, in short, a levelling of the playing fields; today, rich businessmen can toss around millions of dollars in lobbying campaigns, election campaigns, ad campaigns, etc; a corporate top-shot need only give a politician a few free expensive meals, some gifts here and there and promises of lucrative business deals in order to manipulate the "representative of the people" to do whatever is in the corporate agenda. And in this respect, political and economic power must be liberated for the masses simeltaneously. You can not own politics when it is a money game unless you yourself are capable of playing; nor can you own economics when the rich own the law.

What I think you're getting at is a questioning of the political system as a whole; "voting" for "representatives" who go off and manage politics while the rest of us stay home and go on with our lives. There many examples of how such a system can still be maintained in a truely democratic matter. In Cuba, for instance, "politicians" are nothing more than community members who volunteer for such a position (they do not get paid for it), who are voted not based on how much money they can throw into ad campaigns and tours, but on their principles as a member of their community and on their own initiative. I think this is the way to go, this "seperation of capital and state". So long as the politicians themselves are truely representative of their communities, and so long as their is no exploitive "loopholes" where the priviledged can gain an upper hand.

[Joby]

I said that political freedom means nothing if there is such a huge economic disparity, and I completely agree with you.

It's simply that many socialists argue for one form or the other of this "follow-the-leaderism", as if the people have to be worried they'll betray themselves. Isn't socilaism, by definition, opposed to the concentration of political power in the hands of the few?

Yes, I realize that there are times when the revolution will be tested and practical defenses are needed, and that perhaps most executive power ion places such as Cuba needs to be maintained because of its proximity to the US. But isn't supporting a socialist dictatorship, (or it's wonderful euphism "President of the Peoples Republic of...") of any form just another name for "fascism for the people?"

[LSD]

But isn't a system in which we would give all the political power to 1% in order to achieve balance of economic power just as dangerous and, in which case, we would still be "slaves" of one sort in another? Is it not un-socialistic to give any form of control to a minority and not to the masses?

Short answer? Yes.

For the long answer see every single debate we've ever had in this forum (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showforum=6). You're not going to get a simple answer that satisfies you because there isn't one; this is probably the single most contentious issue on the political left today, and it's without a doubt what puts the "sect" in "sectarianism".

Now, I have a pat answer for this kind of question and in my humble opinion it's a fairly good one, but I'm not going to post it here, I'm just going to link to it because I think you're going to get enough rhetorical bullshit from both sides of this debate already.

What's more important is that you recognize that this is a debate and that the people giving you arguments and "logic" are doing so in support of a contentional claim, not divine truth.

These are the kinds of questions that ultimately only you can answer. I suppose it betrays my political tendencies, but I do have faith (although not in the "Jesus Christ" sense of the word) that most people will come to the right conclusion.

If I were more authoritarian, I suppose I would force it upon them...

Anyway, I promised so here it is, On state monopoly capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57918&hl=parties).