[DEBATE] : Women's Global Charter - in full

[Dominic Tweedie]

A very good article in parts good but too long to discuss. One must protest
on those grounds. What is the purpose of omnibus discursions of this kind?
To what extent does it manage to ascend from the abstract to the concrete?

It would be better to accept its lack of concreteness, cut it up into parts,
and compose a summary or concretisation of your own.

Otherwise you are left with a filibuster effect similar the interminable
articles that Russell Grinker insists on posting to this list. They are
never exhaustive but always exhausting. They are never discussed because
they expunge all possible basis for discussion. They simply
occupy potentially fertile space like an incubus or a tokolosh.

I am not saying that the content of Randhir Singh's article "Future of
Socialism" is as dire as that of Grinker's plodding "LM Prawns". I am trying
to problematise the question of length, vis a vis the potential for response
and hence dialogue. Short, concrete articles can be read by much larger
numbers of people and can become the basis (or "codification") of
discussions among workers and the popular masses in general. Articles such
as this one by Randhir Singh are by design impossible of further discussion
(unless deliberately broken down). Revolutionary pedagogy must be
collective, dialogic or social. Articles like these are practically
anti-social. Even the professors' professorial peers will have difficulty in
raising a critique to this choking mouthful.

In struggle,

Domza, VC

On 30/12/2007, Yoshie Furuhashi <critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 27, 2007 12:32 PM, peter waterman <lsifuentesore at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yoshie:
> >
> > To whom should they have adressed their demands, then? To Monthly Review
> > (7,000 or so readers)? To the Revolutionary Internationalist Proletariat
> > (last seen when?)?
>
> I got this online yesterday:
>
> <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/singh291207.html>
> Future of Socialism
> by Randhir Singh
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> since global capitalism is nationally organised and immediately
> dependent on national states, national economies and national states
> remain the primary terrain of anti-capitalist organisation and
> struggle.  Of course an international perspective, working people's
> solidarity across national frontiers, remains vital to any socialist
> movement.  And today there exists a focus for such solidarity as has,
> perhaps, never before existed in the history of capitalism.  The
> universalisation of capitalism has not brought about the cessation but
> instead the universalisation of struggle against capitalism.  When,
> with globalisation, just about every state is following the same
> destructive logic, domestic struggles against that common logic can be
> the basis -- in fact the strongest possible basis -- of a new
> internationalism.  But looking for that internationalism must not be
> an excuse for giving up on local national struggles.  The main arenas
> of struggle against global capitalism still remain local and national.
> 'Workers of all countries, unite' remains the motto but this 'unity'
> obviously begins at home.  There is a growing space for common
> transnational struggles, but the established order has still to be
> primarily fought on our own home pitch.  As the Manifesto put it a
> long time ago: 'the proletariat of each country must, of course, first
> of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.'  If the historical
> experience of more than a century since the Paris Commune is any guide
> this is exactly how it has been.  The world revolutionary process has
> turned out to be extremely uneven and has moved from country to
> country. . . .
>
> In other words, the nation state is indeed the concrete terrain on
> which the struggle for the radical transformation of society must
> begin and may have to be carried forward.  It may be added that to
> argue that a nation state -- and this includes states of the size and
> resources of Britain, France or Italy, or for that matter, India,
> China or Russia -- cannot provide the ground on which the radical
> transformation of society can be attempted is to rule out such a
> transition for the forthcoming historical period.  It is to abdicate
> the struggle for socialism in our time. . . .
> --
> Yoshie
> <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
> _______________________________________________
> DEBATE mailing list
> DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
> http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>



-- 
Blog at: http://domza.blogspot.com/
Communist University web site at: http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/
Subscribe for free e-mail updates at:
http://groups.google.com/group/Communist-University/
Library of documents (CU "CD") at: http://cu.domza.net/
dominic.tweedie at gmail.com