martin wrote:
>
> On Feb 25, 2005, at 7:06 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > So why aren't they joining the antiwar movement?
> >
>
> Could it be, as Carrol suggests, that they don't know it exists?
There was a vigorous anti-war movement during the Korean War -- I did not have an inkling of its existence until the late '60s when I began to read left history!
Besides, as a few of us have endlessly pointed out, passive opinion as exhibited in polls or elections simply does not translate directly into active opposition or active support on any issue. That is the basis for my endlessly repeated argument that left movements must aim first of all at reaching those who (more or less) agree with us but who either are merely passive or don't even know we exist.
We will NEVER have any chance of changing the opinions of those who disagree until we have first built up a vigorous movement of those who already agree. And we won't at first and for many months/years reach a majority even of those who passively agree. The movement must become visible (and the media of course will consistently _not_ aid in that) before it can begin to reach very many of its immediate constituency. That fact illustrates the utter idiocy of those UFPJ 'leaders' who want to lobby Congress. They make themselves irrelevant because Congress won't pay any attention to them until they have a large and militant army at their backs.
Carrol