(1) Could you please identify what you think are the core defining features and institutions of society that need to be changed i.e. economic, political, cultural, gender/sexual, ecological, etc.?
I think you just covered them.
(2) What are your goals for this change, do you seek to reform them, if so with what changes, broadly? Do you seek to fundamentally replace these institutions with some others? If so what do the replacement structures look like, what are their defining features, of course in brief?
This feels like cheating, but I would have to say Albert on economics, Shalom on politics, Podur on community/culture/race, and me plus others on kinship (though this is extremely undeveloped and so perhaps I shouldn't even say it....)
(3) Who do you think the strategic actors are in achieving these goals i.e. political parties, workers, women, queers, immigrants, particular countries or regions, etc?
The strategic actors are everyone. But usually the disenfranchised have the best grip on how injustice works and why.
(4) What tactics do you see being centrally used in achieving these changes i.e. voting, direct action, media action, strikes, demonstrations, etc.?
Sorry, again this feels like copping out, but I think all those strategies are impt. The problem with these tactics is not the tactics themselves, it's that they happen in isolation of each other. So the people organizing the demo. are not in touch with the people doing the direct action or working on the media campaign or the voting campaign. Tactics are meaningless unless they're part of a strategy -- and this -- a strategy -- is what the left is thoroughly lacking. It's barely worth it to engage in any of these tactics in isolation of some real, long-term, serious strategy that occasionally seriously judge according to whether it is succeeding or not, and then adjust it accordingly, and ensure that it is oriented toward winning.
(5) How do other perspectives, which have different ideas about societal change, fit into your strategy and vision?
Not sure. Who do you mean? You mean all those people who are WRONG?? I think there is a lot to learn from a lot of different folks. Even when we disagree with people, it usually behooves us to listen carefully and try to understand where they're coming from. If someone is committed only to reform, for eg., we may discover that it is because they don't believe things can really improve dramatically and so it makes most sense to simply work on reforms. Minor improvements are better than nothing. Dramatic improvements are impossible. If we listen and discover that this is the mentality, then we can try to address it. This has been a major motivator for Michael and I think he's right.