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.
The reason why the proletariat is the class that will actually end class struggle, is because this time it will be the working classes that are on top, not another ruling class like with bourgeois revolutions. The mechanisms for the existence of class are in the mode of production and distribution, we erase class by collectivizing production and distribution, which erases the basis of class struggle and therefore the state.
It isn’t at all because I lack political imagination. If you have class, you have a state. The only way to get rid of class overnight is nuclear apocalypse or similar disaster bringing about early tribal cooperative formations, but this only sets the clock back. After revolution, the bourgeoisie will still exist, and proletarians still working for them, which necessitates the use of a proletarian state.
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.
It isn’t a lack of imagination. Since we cannot skip to communism, the only way to immediately achieve classless society is to nuke it all. You cannot both have class and classlessness.
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
Incorrect, though. Previous revolutions have been aristocratic or bourgeois revolutions, with the exception of socialist revolutions in the 20th and 21st centuries. These socialist revolutions are building socialism in real life, and moved beyond the “present state of affairs” in capitalist countries, but must constantly be vigilant or else face backsliding like the USSR.
just with a rotating class of subjugators
Proletarians as the ruling class, ie working class leadership, are not an exploiting class. This is the prime distinction between previous states. Socialist countries do not have leadership of exploiters.
How’s this one going to be different? Because this time the subjugated are using dialectics? Because we want to eliminate class?
Because the rule by a working class that can only achieve liberation by collectivizing production and distribution for all is the basis of ending class society.
The only way we’re ever going to eliminate class and other categories of subjugation is by eliminating the mechanisms by which they exist.
Sure, which requires collectivizing all of production and distribution, which requires a proletarian-run state. This abolishes class struggle and therefore the basis of the state.
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.
You have not given an explanation for how class can exist without the state, while also agreeing that we cannot abolish class overnight. If you can disprove class struggle as the basis of the state, or otherwise prove how to instantly collectivize all of production and distribution, then we might have somewhere to take this, but for now it seems you don’t have an answer, you just don’t like the existing answer.
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.
The reason why the proletariat is the class that will actually end class struggle, is because this time it will be the working classes that are on top, not another ruling class like with bourgeois revolutions. The mechanisms for the existence of class are in the mode of production and distribution, we erase class by collectivizing production and distribution, which erases the basis of class struggle and therefore the state.
It isn’t at all because I lack political imagination. If you have class, you have a state. The only way to get rid of class overnight is nuclear apocalypse or similar disaster bringing about early tribal cooperative formations, but this only sets the clock back. After revolution, the bourgeoisie will still exist, and proletarians still working for them, which necessitates the use of a proletarian state.
It isn’t a lack of imagination. Since we cannot skip to communism, the only way to immediately achieve classless society is to nuke it all. You cannot both have class and classlessness.
Incorrect, though. Previous revolutions have been aristocratic or bourgeois revolutions, with the exception of socialist revolutions in the 20th and 21st centuries. These socialist revolutions are building socialism in real life, and moved beyond the “present state of affairs” in capitalist countries, but must constantly be vigilant or else face backsliding like the USSR.
Proletarians as the ruling class, ie working class leadership, are not an exploiting class. This is the prime distinction between previous states. Socialist countries do not have leadership of exploiters.
Because the rule by a working class that can only achieve liberation by collectivizing production and distribution for all is the basis of ending class society.
Sure, which requires collectivizing all of production and distribution, which requires a proletarian-run state. This abolishes class struggle and therefore the basis of the state.
You have not given an explanation for how class can exist without the state, while also agreeing that we cannot abolish class overnight. If you can disprove class struggle as the basis of the state, or otherwise prove how to instantly collectivize all of production and distribution, then we might have somewhere to take this, but for now it seems you don’t have an answer, you just don’t like the existing answer.