^^^^^ CB: I agree with you. For, in any given specific instance of a disagreement between working class or middle class individuals, the ruling class doesn't have an interest in either party winning. The ruling class just has an interest in everybody obeying whatever decision is made. I agree with you that the ruling class has an interest in general order, and obedience to law, if that is what you mean. However, as you say, the working class has the same interest as the ruling class in this regard, so there is no conflict of interests between the classes, and the ruling class can't be said to monopolize power , but "share" power with the working class, in a sense, with respect acting for general order.
But I was addressing your proposition that the capitalist class monopolizes economic but not political power. The capitalist class does not , as you say, monopolize political power in the sense of getting involved in _most_ of the political decisions, most of which are "little" , like who wins in a divorce or misdemeanor law case, or which version of a law on deer hunting gets passed, etc. I am agreeing with you that the ruling class doesn't monopolize power in those political decisions. But it does monopolize power in political decisions that impact the _conflicts_ between the material interests of the ruling class and the material interests of the working class.
^^^^^ Social order, in a class society, is difficult to maintain, because of the many conflicting interests, laws and police are essential in the type of society we have. We all depend on them. Only a class-less society could survive without a large and intricate penal structure of legislature, courts, police etc, or indeed the civil courts structure for dealing with property disputes. A class society, characterised by structurally irreconcilable conflicts of interests at all levels, would collapse into chaos without this framework of imposed order.
So, to say that capitalists have no interest involved in such matters as do not directly involve their own persons or property, ignores the big picture.
^^^^ CB: The capitalists have no interests involved in such matters _that conflict with working class interests in such matters_. So, there isn't a sense in which capitalists monopolize power and politics here because they generally want the same thing as the working class in this area. There can only be a monopoly of power vis-a-vis another class that has a conflict of interest on the matter for which power is monopolized. That the only way in which the term "monopoly" makes sense in this context.
^^^^^^
Even capitalists divorce and divorce law is all to do with property and custody/maintenance of children. The latter of course, to a large degree about who is responsible for paying. But the legal structure has to work for all to some degree and be acceptable to the subject class as well. Otherwise, the law will be disregarded and flouted by the vast majority of the population.
^^^^ CB: Agree. Gender struggle and conflict of interest there.
^^^^^^
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.
Incidentally, it also has the benefit of ensuring that political power cannot be monopolised too much by those who actually wield it. Politicians are transitory, their tenure is insecure, their power diluted. Which serves to prevent any political power being concentrated to the extent that it might actually constitute a threat to the economic power of the capitalist class. It is in the best interests of the ruling class to thus hobble political power, they wouldn't want even one of their own attaining THAT much political power. ESPECIALLY one of their own, come to think about it. ;-)
And if the working class should be tempted to exercise its political power in a way which is inimical to the fundamental interests of the ruling class, this would lead to economic disruption and hardship. The ruling class, controlling as it does the actual productive economy of a nation, not to mention most of the economy of the world in which any nation's economy must operate, have many ways to both protect themselves and retaliate. The working class will be sure to suffer first and foremost. Thus tempering any inclination that the working class might have to 'misuse' their political predominance.
This is all fairly obvious. Most people understand this at some level, even if they haven't really thought it through. Its why the electorate is conservative, they don't want to elect some radical who will rock the capitalist boat, because they know that the first ones to fall overboard will be themselves, not the capitalists who captain the boat.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
^^^^ CB: Yea, I see. You are sort of saying that the capitalists in these cases exercise political power indirectly through economic power, maybe ?