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

[peter waterman]

Thanks, Yoshie, and a happy new year to you too.

You seem to be suggesting, by forwarding this item, that the Women's Global 
Charter should have been x hundred individual national such ones, each 
addressed to a particular state.

Or are you changing the subject to that of the significance of the nation, 
nation state, national struggles, national identies in the era of a 
globalised networked capitalism?

Let me know before I say something off your point.

Peter W.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <critical.montages at gmail.com>
To: "debate: SA discussion list" <debate at lists.kabissa.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [DEBATE] : Women's Global Charter - in full


> 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
>