The best ways of organizing are not essentially different than the way religious people recruit... with this difference... we want to try to be Democratic and let people discover the world for themselves. We want both solidarity and independent thinking. If we don't allow for both then we may win some battles but in the long run we won't accomplish what we want. We will fail and we will have to start anew. And when we are defeated, thoroughly, the next generation will have to start all over again, with little memory of what we went through. It's been this way for at least 2,500 years maybe more, perhaps longer. The costs of failure keep on growing, but so do the benefits of success. "Fail. Fail again. Fail better." (Beckett). This has been my "writing motto" ever since I have been 20 and I first read it. It is another variation of Gramsci's oft quoted, "Pessimism of the intellect; optimism of the will." >>>
<<<And what is your ultimate solution? That we should wait until some deus ex machina of a disaster saves us? Historically, such defeats have led to the destabilization of ruling groups. But the usual result is very, nasty. People turn against all outsiders, destroying each other and anyone not like them. Tyranny, fascism, slaughter. This is the usual result of such disasters down through history. Unless, before the disaster there is organization and education and a good 33% of the people are already well enough organized to get something good going again. >>>
WS:
Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully respond to my post. I take the liberty of posting my reply to the list, because I think that others may be interested in this topic. Let me start with the assertion that I am not that far from your views about the virtues of a social change toward socialism and the need for "organizing" (whatever that means) toward that goal. Where we differ is strategy rather than the overall direction.
First of all, I do not share such a grim view of the United States as you do - by which I mean its political system. That is to say, I do not think that we would better off by changing that system at this time, because the direction of that change would almost certainly be some form of business or populist fascism rather than social democracy, let alone socialism. Stated differently, I would love to give up the current US system for the Scandinavian-style social democracy (to keep desires of the heart within the bounds of reality,) but since the probability of that happening is rather low at this time, I'd rater keep the status quo rather than going for options that are at the time more probable (fully-blown neo-liberalism, theocracy, or populist fascism.) I may also add that I do not think the change of the status quo for those less desirable option is likely - given the nature of the US polity - but as you point it yourself, a sufficient level of destabilization can indeed turn ugly. So the bottom line is that while do not like many aspects of the status quo in the US of A, I am not desperate to change that status quo at any cost either.
The second issue is the strategy proper. If memory serves, there was a view expressed during the Vietnam war that the Vietnamese strategy was more like grass than the oak. When strong winds blow the grass bends down to the ground and then raises again when it's over. The oak, otoh, resists the wind until it is uprooted and dies. That philosophy has a certain appeal to me - and there are many historical precedents showing that it works. There are also many historical precedents demonstrating the "oak" strategy does not. After all, I am coming from the land where patriotic or revolutionary fervor often trumped the reason, the land of doomed uprisings whose pompous memories infest collective consciousness and public discourse, while the rational efforts to modernize are equated with treason. I see much the same attitude on the US left - where the rigid adherence to principles and formulaic motions trumps rational assessment of the situation. I think that the roots of that are moral entrepreneurs and "activistism" as Doug calls it (or mountebanks as HL Mencken would say,) who have vested interests in creating and maintaining their intellectual commodity market niches (aka sectarianism), but that is another story.
So what you perceive as defeatism I view as the call for putting the received wisdom to rest in favor of a realistic assessment of the situation. And that assessment tells us that the Left today is more like the grass than the oak, and thus should abandon the "oak strategy" of the past for the "grass strategy," which is more suitable for its current condition. I understand that this may not be popular with the intellectually pure campus radicals and "activistists," but hey, I am used to it - I've always been a nerd rather than a popular guy.
I have a few ideas for that "grass strategy," which I floated on this list without sparking much interest - most of which gravitate around the Gramscian notion of civil society and the concepts of the transaction cost economics - but that is subject to another debate. Suffice it to say that unlike many US lefties, I do not see governments, corporations, and civil society institutions as enemies, but as potential allies. But as I already said, I am a continental European by birth and the habits of the heart, so the US-style individualism and populism sound quite alien to me.
And one more observation, I do not think that we need to "pull it ourselves" i.e. do the "organizing" from the scratch or "grassroots." In fact, such approach to "organizing" in the US is among the main causes of its weakness. The US is more like Western Europe than ElSalvador - it has well developed organizational structures and a well-functioning government to do the "heavy lifting." The European left recognized that many years ago and used it to their advantage, while the US insisted on localism, anti-institutionalism and individualistic, small-group approach to organizing. This imho explains why European have social democracy today, while the US is ravaged by neo-liberalism.
Wojtek