On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Bill Bartlett wrote:

> Steve Tomljenov wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> >The fundamental question facing society is not an economic one, but
> >a political one.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with this Steve, although you may be using "economic"
> in a way that is different to me. If you mean by this that modern
> capitalist society has sufficient productive capacity to provide for the
> needs of everyone, then I agree. But if you mean (as you seem to)  the way
> the economy is organised, the inequality, the deprivation, the
> exploitation, in short the widespread misery created by the capitalist
> system in the midst of plenty, then I would obviously disagree.

What I mean is that government is the strongest force in society.
Governments can shape whatever econimic system they like.
The whole problem has been, like you stated, that government has
always been on the side of those who already have enourmous wealth.
But what is the tie that binds the leaders in government to the
wealthy class?  Thoughout history, it has been the case the leaders
of government were the wealthy class.  Aristocrats, nobles, kings and
queens, etc.. But in the democratic/captialist era, this is not always
the case.  The undercurrent of my article, and one that I didn't make
clear enough, was that the wealthly classes have power in a democratic
system because of the enourmous amount of resources it takes to get
candidates into office.  So either these candidates come from the
wealthy classes themselves, or the candidates have to be subserviant
to these classes, because they need thier support to get thier in the
first place.  If this tie is broken, then we can begin to have real
change in society.  Otherwise, the best we can hope for is
totalitarianism, either by the wealthy class, or by a political
class, like in the communist countries.

>
> >How do we organize millions of people so that the laws
> >and institutions of that society are made in a way that benefits the vast
> >majority, if not all, of it's members.
>
> That is an admirable objective, but of course it is not and never has been
> the object of political government. Political government is the art of
> governing the majority in the interests of an elite.
>
> History teaches us that the form of political government began with the
> crack of the slave-drivers whip. That is to say it only became necessary
> when society became divided along class lines.
>
> Society is still divided along class lines. No longer Master and slave (for
> the most part). No longer Lord and serf (at least not in western
> countries). But now we are divided between capitalists and workers, divided
> also by fundamental conflict of interest which can only be resolved through
> the control of some form of political government.
>
> So the reason political government never operates for the benefit of the
> vast majority is not that its method is flawed, but because it was designed
> to do the exact opposite. Tinkering with it won't help either because
> political government is designed to serve the ECONOMIC system.
>

  I agree with this to a limited extent, but I think government has
beneficial roles as well.  It allows for a mediation of disputes,
the protection of the minority from the majority, the pooling of resources
to acheive things that would otherwise be unattainable (an interstate
highway, electrical distribution, sewers, etc), technological advancement,
the coining of currency, etc.  Just because government has been misused
in the past does not mean that it cannot have a beneficial role in the
future.  We simply need a form that is subservient to the people.

> I like your discussion of political systems (despite myself) though.

Thank you :)

>
> But I think your premise, that one of the problems is the sheer size of
> electorates, is interesting. That has some truth, but I think my analysis
> (above) is closer to the mark.

I agree with your analysis, I'm just trying to explain why government is
subservient to the wealthy.

>
> As a matter of fact my home state (Tasmania) is massively over-governed by
> modern standards. It also has probably the most fair and democratic
> electoral system in the western world. This system, the Hare-Clark
> proportional representation system, elects 35 state parliamentarians, in 5
> geographical electorates.
>
> Each of the 5 electorate has only 50-60,000 electors (from memory, don't
> quote me) and since each electorate elects 7 members of parliament many
> Tasmanians DO know their politicians. I know a couple myself, it doesn't
> help much, because politicians are required to act in the interests of the
> ruling class except at the margins.
>
> What is more, the Hare-Clark system is designed to minimise the influence
> of political parties in determining who is elected. The major parties
> nominate 7 candidates in each electorate, but only (at most) 4 will be
> elected and the party has no control over WHICH of its endorsed candidates
> will get a guernsey. Tasmanians regularly turf out sitting politicians from
> a political party and replace them with new members from the same political
> party. I remember one particular case (although it happens every election)
> where a highly respected, long serving member was turfed out because he
> happenned to be the Education Minister presiding over unpopular cuts in
> education funding.

This is interesting.  But I would bet that the political parties still
still take quite a bit of money because they have to in order to function.
that means the well to do influence policy.  On of my premises, and
perhaps one that I didn't make clear enough, was that not only do you
need to know your political leaders, but you need to know a majority
of the people in your district as well.  Otherwise, it is impossible
for you to hold these officials accountable.  And once there is
no longer a chance for normal human relations between all the people
in a consituency, then the higher officials will sell themselves out
because they have no choice. Parties cannot exist in a small constituency.
You can have factions, but no parties.  There is no need for them.


>
> Anyhow, none of this changes the fundamental problems. Which is that REAL
> power is not in the hands of politicians and governments, it is in the
> hands of the owners of the means of production. So it is the economic
> system that must be changed, if we end the division of society along class
> lines then political government will no longer be NECESSARY.

Here I agree and disagree.  I don't think private ownership is
neccessarily the problem.  The issue is when the workers time and
labor is worth nothing.  But that aside, I think political government
will alway be neccessary because of the limitation of the human being.
Heaven is in anarchy, I like to muse..:)  The issue is how do we
create one that is subservient to the people?

steve

>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas.
>