>>>No state = no contracts, no money, no cops, no army. Try ruling
>>>without those things.
>>
>>Sure, but what's your point exactly?
>
>That your point is bogus. Economic power is impossible without state power.
Obviously, the economic power of the capitalist class couldn't exist without the state. But how does this contradict my argument that: the capitalist class is a ruling class because it has a monopoly on this economic power, not because it has a monopoly on political power? Did you get the impression I was arguing that political government was unnecessary to capitalism?
Clearly political government is necessary, just as clearly the capitalist class doesn't need a monopoly on the political power of political government. Many of the most advanced capitalist nations have political governments which are democratically elected. Even, to some extent, the USA. State (political) power (police, military, etc) in these cases cannot in any meaningful way be said to be monopolised by the capitalist class. Any fool can see that political power is in the hands of people elected (for the most part) by the working class. The working class has overwhelming numerical superiority, it can elect anyone it pleases. Sometimes we even elect governments which are thoroughly displeasing to the ruling class.
On the other hand, just as clearly, economic power is monopolised by the capitalist class. Whatever government is elected.
Which of these points is "bogus" and why?
Certainly the straw man argument, that - "Economic power is impossible without state power." is bogus. But that's just a diversion.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas