> 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,
In the narrow context of capitalism, no. That is to say, if capitalism is a given, then capitalism with the rule of law is a great improvement over capitalism without the rule of law. For both classes.
But of course I wouldn't agree that capitalism is better for both classes. To draw a crude analogy, if you're up shit creek, its in your interests to have a paddle. But you wouldn't want to be up shit creek in the first place. The working class under capitalism is up shit creek. If law and order collapses, then the working class is up shit creek without a paddle. ;-)
> 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.
Share POLITICAL power, though as I say - the capitalist class monopolise economic power. And economic power is far and away the predominate power under capitalism.
>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.
How? Using its economic power you mean? If so, you are actually agreeing with me. If not, you need to explain how the capitalist class monopolises political power for certain decisions when it doesn't have a monopoly on political power to begin with.
>^^^^
>CB: Yea, I see. You are sort of saying that the capitalists in these cases
>exercise political power indirectly through economic power, maybe ?
No. I'm saying that economic power trumps political power under capitalism. So the capitalist class doesn't NEED to exercise a monopoly on political power.