In any case "civil" rights stretch no further than the workings of bourgeois
> democracy: they represent an the abstract equality of citizenship in the
> bourgeois republic. They are not substantive.
I agree with that as far as it goes, but for a big chunk of the world's population, bourgeois rights would be big steps forward, and are goals worth pursuing. No society can move toward any sort of revolutionary change without the means of self-determination.
I'm reminded (not by Carrol, but my own train of thought) of a small Trotskyist group which comes to Palestine solidarity events in New York to make speeches in favor of a "Socialist Federation of the Middle East." Another - the competition, I guess - prefers a "Socialist Federation of the Near East." Either would be a fine idea, but these characters apparently expect them to spring fully-formed from the status quo here!
I'm not self-absorbed enough to assume that Western-style liberal democracy is a prerequisite for revolutionary change, but at the very least, freedom from foreign occupation and institutionalized apartheid seems necessary.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."