>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.
>
>*********
Mike B) responded:
>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 selectors are the 'powerbrokers' and other moneyed interests who know their class interests. Bourgeois democracy is just that, democracy for the bourgeois. To be sure, the working class votes for the candidates selected for them. But, they certainly don't control the State--the laws are not in their hands. As long as they don't threaten the rule of Capital (i.e. they do not become class consciously organized), they will continue to be encouraged to vote for the major party candidates of their choice and even attend the church and liquor store of their choice. The rules and regs differ in each capitalist democracy, but the result is the same : the continued rule of Capital.
Regards, Mike B)
Further information below:
Coghill has noted the problems with party preselections, including the fact that very few people actually vote in many such ballots, yet winning candidates often end up with a parliamentary seat. Not only are such preselections unrepresentative, but they are easily manipulated by party powerbrokers. He talks of a 'fracturing of the relationship between politicians and citizens' that is swinging many voters to minor parties, and worries about the threat they pose to Australian democracy.
Coghill wonders if Australia should look for alternative arrangements, and he has floated the idea of party preselections being replaced by party primaries as run in the United States of Americasomething spoken of by Wayne Swan MP (ALP) as well. Instead of a party's candidate being chosen by intra-party processes, this would be done by a public vote. He believes this would introduce a process whereby voters would be able to vote in the party preselection process as well as in a general election. Although he notes the problems in America with the great cost of such primaries, he thinks this is a practical weakness that could be overcome. The overall benefit, though could be immense, and he states that Australia 'should explore the possibility of extending democracy to allow voters to affect the selection of political party candidates to public office'. In support of this Rowena Johns' research for the New South Wales Parliament suggests that primaries are an improvement on party ballots due to their being 'more democratic', and she has suggested that it 'should remove much of the incentive for branch-stacking
full: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02rp21.htm#partypre ******************************************************************************
There was some reporting in the press a few days ago about political donations from tobacco interests.
The Liberal Party apparently has no restrictions on accepting donations from tobacco, while Labor has a ban on money from only the two Australian-based manufacturers, British American Tobacco and Philip Morris. Labor has no ban, however, on money from tobacco retailers.
ALP national assistant secretary, David Feeney, when queried about the anomaly, said, "We are not interested in unilateral disarmament in the face of the Liberal Party, which would accept money from slave traders if it was allowed."
full: http://bloggers.laborfirst.com.au/bloggers/blog.asp?entryId=67241
Read "The Perthian Brickburner": http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com