On 15/11/2013, at 11:57 AM, Marv Gandall <marvgand2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Where the masses have a favourable view of private ownership, or at least the perception that it is the most natural and effective system to improve their living conditions while allowing them a certain degree of personal freedom, capitalist hegemony is assured. It's not necessary that the political leadership be selected "directly" from within the business community, though that is often the case. It is sufficient that the political leaders have close ties to the corporate sector, depend on it for funding, respond to its lobbyists, and equate its welfare with the welfare of the nation. Those who are outside this consensus do not get elected to high office.
So the majority of the working class refuse to elect anti-capitalist political leaders because they have a favourable view of capitalism. This hardly detracts from the theory that the political state in a democratic capitalist society is under the control of the working class.
Certainly we might expect unconstitutional trouble from the ruling class if ever a political government attempted to act contrary to their class interests. If that government had the full support of the majority of the working class, the 99% so to speak, then the final outcome is highly predictable. 99% prevails over 1% I should imagine. But in the meantime it is sufficient that the working class equates the best interests of the employing class with the best interests of all. 100% prevails certainly prevails over 0%.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas