[lbo-talk] ruling class

[Bill Bartlett]

At 12:22 AM -0800 1/4/06, Mike Ballard wrote:

>In societies where political government is democratically elected,
>the laws are to a large degree in the hands of the ruled class
>(because they constitute the overwhelming majority of the people and
>their votes swamp the votes of the capitalist class.) This helps
>ensure that, to the extent possible within the context of capitalist
>economics, the legal structure will be acceptable by the majority and
>workable. Which is of immense benefit to the capitalist class.
>
>*********
>Point of information:
>Selection of candidates comes before election of law makers/judges and the
>selectors are not members of the ruled class in a bourgeois democracy.

The selection of candidates for political office varies I gather. 
Here in Australia the system is generally that candidates nominate 
and pay a deposit, usually a few hundred dollars I think, which they 
forfeit unless they receive a certain number of votes. Never really 
looked into it, must ask a friend of mine who was a candidate 
endorsed by the Democratic Socialist Party at the recent Tasmanian 
State election.

Party nominated candidates of course are determined by the parties, 
with registered parties having to jump through a few extra hoops in 
exchange for the privilege of having their candidate(s) grouped under 
the party's name on the ballot paper. But the candidates still have 
to pay their deposit and follow all the other procedures to get their 
name on the ballot paper. There are few restrictions on anyone who 
wants to nominate. You have to be an Australian citizen I recall 
(there's been the odd case where people who weren't citizens have 
slipped through and even been elected, then not allowed to take their 
seat because their non-citizenship was discovered) and enrolled to 
vote.

Some places, like Iran and the USA are a lot more restrictive, for 
different reasons. Of course political power in the USA, especially 
at the level of the national executive government, is exceptional 
because (unusually) it is both immensely concentrated (in a single 
person) and the military power of the USA is today so immense. 
Perhaps that goes some way to explaining why so much trouble is taken 
to fetter political democracy? I think I recall Chomsky having 
something to say along those lines. Something to the effect that the 
practice of  political democracy was far better outside the US, 
precisely because the outcome didn't really matter outside the US.

Personally, I've always thought that election of the judiciary was a 
repulsive practice that conflicted with the principle of an 
independent and impartial judiciary. Americans do seem to go way over 
the top on the democracy front, with direct election of all sorts of 
other minor bureaucrats. But Americans have always preferred quantity 
to quality in all things, why should democracy be any different? ;-)

But in the more developed and established democracies, I wasn't aware 
it was usually the case that candidates are vetted by the ruling 
class. Correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick? Maybe 
Australia is exceptional, in that its form of democracy is freer than 
usual?

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas