So, it seems like you’re saying two separate things here: (1) class struggle inherently involves a monopoly on violence, and (2) a monopoly on violence is strategically necessary for the proletariat in order to build a classless, stateless society. Can you clarify which one you mean, or if you mean both?
Ok, so this is where I’m lost. I can understand why one would find a monopoly on violence to be strategically necessary to achieve the goals of the revolution (though I disagree). I don’t understand how you can argue class struggle inherently involves a monopoly on violence, unless you are just defining class by who happens to have a monopoly on violence (which would defeat the whole point of class struggle). The entire concept of “a monopoly on violence” is a product of bourgeois society–they are the ones who built the structures that legitimized certain types of violence while restricting and punishing other types. So to negate the existence of the bourgeoisie, we negate the existence of those structures. Which fundamentally means tearing down mechanisms by which anyone can wield a monopoly on violence.
States are far older than the bourgeoisie, states arose when class first arose in early slave-based modes of production. Class struggle, the existence of classes, is what gives rise to the state. The state cannot exist when there is no class, but we cannot negate class without collectivizing all production and distribution globally. Since this will be a gradual process, we must create a proletarian state that will strip the bourgeoisie of its property. As it does so, the state itself withers with respect to how far class struggle has erased.
When you say we tear down the mechanisms by which anyone can wield a monopoly on violence, you either are saying you wish to reset all of human progress to anarcho-primitivism, before class struggle arose, or are agreeing with me that we must finally abolish the basis of the state by gradually collectivizing production and distribution, which requires a proletarian state. There is no third option.
So, it seems like you’re saying two separate things here: (1) class struggle inherently involves a monopoly on violence, and (2) a monopoly on violence is strategically necessary for the proletariat in order to build a classless, stateless society. Can you clarify which one you mean, or if you mean both?
Both. The state is a necessary product of class struggle, and exists until class struggle is negated.
Ok, so this is where I’m lost. I can understand why one would find a monopoly on violence to be strategically necessary to achieve the goals of the revolution (though I disagree). I don’t understand how you can argue class struggle inherently involves a monopoly on violence, unless you are just defining class by who happens to have a monopoly on violence (which would defeat the whole point of class struggle). The entire concept of “a monopoly on violence” is a product of bourgeois society–they are the ones who built the structures that legitimized certain types of violence while restricting and punishing other types. So to negate the existence of the bourgeoisie, we negate the existence of those structures. Which fundamentally means tearing down mechanisms by which anyone can wield a monopoly on violence.
States are far older than the bourgeoisie, states arose when class first arose in early slave-based modes of production. Class struggle, the existence of classes, is what gives rise to the state. The state cannot exist when there is no class, but we cannot negate class without collectivizing all production and distribution globally. Since this will be a gradual process, we must create a proletarian state that will strip the bourgeoisie of its property. As it does so, the state itself withers with respect to how far class struggle has erased.
When you say we tear down the mechanisms by which anyone can wield a monopoly on violence, you either are saying you wish to reset all of human progress to anarcho-primitivism, before class struggle arose, or are agreeing with me that we must finally abolish the basis of the state by gradually collectivizing production and distribution, which requires a proletarian state. There is no third option.