>I think Jim reveals himself as a radical bourgeois democrat in this
>contribution. He objects to legal regulation of funding of political
>parties, which is an important topical battle in all bourgeois democracies.
>It is ultimately a class battle, since capital benefits from an absolute
>right to fund politics.
Naive indeed to imagine that anyone but the bourgeoisie would gain by greater state regulation of political parties. I am happy to be painted a radical bourgeois democrat when the alternative is conservative reactionary despot.
>
>Of course I agree that Communist rigging of EEPTU elections was damaging.
>But it was brought to account by legal processes was it not?
No. It was brought to account by the long reign of the former Communist- turned right-winger who exposed the system that he gained by and gained again as whistle-blower, Frank Chapple. The CPGB put Chapple in power behind the backs of the membership as a Communist, and then created the conditions under which, as a right-winger, he vilified the entire left as being as corrupt as the CPGB. The rule book was manipulated to achieve political ends in much the same way that the law is being manipulated by the Magistratura Democratica. Such unprincipled behaviour will only aid the right.
>
>I find Jim's naivety about the sovereignty of electors wilful.
Well, indeed. Will is precisely what is at issue. I stand on the side of the popular will, you on the side of the established authority. Supporting democracy is not naive. Putting your neck into the noose and asking the judges to decide - that's naive.
>
>This is radical cover for doing nothing about the Murdoch's, Berlusconi's,
>and Berezhosvky's of this world.
On the contrary, devolving all initiative to the judiciary is the abdication of responsibility. The left's appeal to the law, like the CPGB's manipulation of the rule-book in the EEPTU is an attempt to evade the responsibility of winning the argument amongst ordinary people.
>
>The law too may be an arena of class struggle.
No, actually, it may not. No more than the Royal Family is a site of class struggle. -- Jim heartfield