>oh, no no no. you have forgotten all the claims made about how we
>can't influence the administration, we can't stop a war. were these
>claims not made repeatedly in criticism of doug? but, doug, why
>bother? we can't change what the administration does. we can't
>influece it. doug, you should be out beating the streets.
But not looking for converts, of course....
At 4:28 PM -0600 4/6/02, Carrol Cox wrote:
>This is roughly my basis for claiming for many years that persuasion
>only works on those who have already (on some random basis) become
>engaged in activity that presupposes agreement with the position one
>wants to convey to them. One can't even _listen_ to descriptions of u.s.
>imperialism until one has already in one way or another become involved
>in activity that is objectively anti-imperialist. (And there is _no_
>general formula for becoming involved in such activity: it is contingent
>and, for all practical purposes, random for each individual who gets
>involved in such activity.)
>
>I'm back to what has been more or less central to everything I've
>written on maillists for five years. Arguments have to be directed at
>those who already accept them but don't know they do. Put otherwise, the
>first task of agitation or organizing is not in forming a persuasive
>message; it is in creating an action which involves people before they
>know why they are involved.
So you can't influence the government and can't persuade the unconvinced. Why fucking bother then?
Doug