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.
Fuck, I’m tired. I was thinking “upper class” but said “bourgeoisie”–you’re totally right on that lol.
Nonetheless, my point still stands, and your second paragraph feels spiritually on the level of a democrat giving an ultimatum about voting for the “lesser of two evils”. You’re taking a really complex problem that has plagued us for thousands of years and claiming that the only solutions are either (a) undo all of civilization, or (b) do what this German guy suggested a century ago. That is a lack of political imagination.
To your point, the state was constructed over the centuries via class (and gender and ethnic and neurotype and ) struggle between the subjugating and the subjugated. It continues to exist because those contradictions still exist. Even after centuries of revolutions of various kinds, all with the goal of leveling inequalities and boosting the position of the subjugated, we still have this same state of affairs–just with a rotating class of subjugators. How’s this one going to be different? Because this time the subjugated are using dialectics? Because we want to eliminate class? I don’t find that convincing. The only way we’re ever going to eliminate class and other categories of subjugation is by eliminating the mechanisms by which they exist. The fact that you can’t think of any way to do this that isn’t reverting to anarcho-primitivism is not a valid reason to reject the premise.
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.
Fuck, I’m tired. I was thinking “upper class” but said “bourgeoisie”–you’re totally right on that lol.
Nonetheless, my point still stands, and your second paragraph feels spiritually on the level of a democrat giving an ultimatum about voting for the “lesser of two evils”. You’re taking a really complex problem that has plagued us for thousands of years and claiming that the only solutions are either (a) undo all of civilization, or (b) do what this German guy suggested a century ago. That is a lack of political imagination.
To your point, the state was constructed over the centuries via class (and gender and ethnic and neurotype and ) struggle between the subjugating and the subjugated. It continues to exist because those contradictions still exist. Even after centuries of revolutions of various kinds, all with the goal of leveling inequalities and boosting the position of the subjugated, we still have this same state of affairs–just with a rotating class of subjugators. How’s this one going to be different? Because this time the subjugated are using dialectics? Because we want to eliminate class? I don’t find that convincing. The only way we’re ever going to eliminate class and other categories of subjugation is by eliminating the mechanisms by which they exist. The fact that you can’t think of any way to do this that isn’t reverting to anarcho-primitivism is not a valid reason to reject the premise.