> True enough. But this doesn't provide much practical guidance: society
> "as it is" is a complex array of social organizations and institutions,
> so the forms of struggle we can take are myriad. Why not join the
> Catholic Church? The Young Republicans? A frat house? Sure, all those
> organizations are imperfect, but by the logic in your post above, well,
> they're all drawn from society as it is, and if we don't join those
> groups, we're giving up on the struggle.
Here are the decision rules: (1) Prefer the means of struggle that working people, where they stand now -- i.e. at their current level of consciousness and organization -- historically, effectively choose (i.e. with their actions) to meet their collective needs and advance their class interest. And (2), among those meeting (1), prefer the means of struggle that -- potentially at least -- best promote the broader unity, organization, and self-education of the working people.
That should leave out a few of those you list above.
Admittedly, in concrete circumstances and in the face of uncertainty, following these rules is not straightforward. But I cannot see why electoral politics wouldn't be *the main* means of struggle for the U.S. working people nowadays. More about this below...
> Sure, there are many strategies we can use to accomplish our goals;
> everyday, though, we make judgments to prioritize certain strategies
> over others. You've made an implicit judgment that electoral politics
> is a high priority strategy; I think there are more interesting and
> promising paths to explore. And saying "well, we can do it all" doesn't
> solve the problem: we have finite time and resources, so we'll just end
> up doing everything--half-assed.
Then, if I understand your objection correctly, the issue is not one of principle, but one of degree.
You are right that I presume that electoral politics is a higher priority. Isn't it obvious why? Broader political struggles (e.g. national elections) dispute the largest stock of concentrated political power, the machinery of the central government, the most powerful lever that exists nowadays to speed up (or slow down) the transformation of our society.
In the case of the U.S., considering the scope of federal legislation (which translates into the power to adjudicate a wide array of rights and responsibilities at the national level), the taxing power of the federal government, the reach of U.S. foreign policy, the military might of the U.S., just to name a few items, we're talking about the largest stock of concentrated social power anywhere ever.
After 8 years of Bush, people know that the outcome of a process like this is highly consequential. Not for nothing are we witnessing what's perhaps the highest level of electoral involvement in a generation. Abroad, the level of expectation couldn't be higher. In a phrase, the stakes are the highest.
When European socialism was young and good looking, the starting points were local economic struggles, workplace protests or initiatives, or political movements of topical or local scope. Some of those, every now and then would lead to more widespread political explosions. Except in a few cases, formal electoral democracy was precluded or highly thwarted in practice. Political struggles proper, i.e. those involving legislative choices and their implementation by governments, were deemed more advanced forms of struggle. Electoral democracy, as it exists today, is largely the result of bloody popular battles that began as economic or local struggles. Like any other popular conquest, you use it or lose it. In the U.S. today, people are determined to use it.
Are you saying, then, that we should abandon electoral politics (i.e. the levers of central government, the conduction of fiscal, foreign, military policies, etc.) and concentrate on local initiatives such as child care co-ops, etc. I don't mean to put down local initiatives, but I admit that I find it a bit disconcerting to have to argue this point now.