audrbox comments on Solarpunk

[–] audrbox@beehaw.org 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] audrbox@beehaw.org 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] audrbox@beehaw.org 1 point 9 months ago

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.