[DEBATE] : Women's Global Charter - in full
grinker at mweb.co.za
Mon Dec 31 08:52:56 GMT 2007
Are you saying that anything too long, difficult or complicated is too
challenging for the average punter to grasp? You also seem to assume that
what you feel unable or unwilling to grapple with must automatically be of
no interest to anyone else.
Sorry I don't post enough of the crypto-religious ten point programmes,
semi-literate rants and official press releases on this list that you seem
to mistake for Marxism and no doubt describe as 'concrete'. I happen to
think that these appeal to nobody apart from a narrow layer of apparatchiks.
This is confirmed by the lack of meaningful dialogue on your own discussion
fora which are almost entirely dominated by your own postings.
You don't specify in detail what you object to in my postings but I suppose
that given your key role in the struggle and the imminence of revolutionary
rupture made possible by the rise of JZ, you don't have the time to deal
with trivia. I think that we just have minimal common ground on what's
important these days.
From: debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org
[mailto:debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org] On Behalf Of Dominic Tweedie
Sent: 31 December 2007 08:06 AM
To: debate: SA discussion list
Subject: Re: [DEBATE] : Women's Global Charter - in full
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.
More information about the Debate-list