Bob Morris wrote:
>
> >
> > I still
> > maintain that UFPJ is an effort by big labor and the Democrats to
> > control and recuperate the anti-war movements. Their strategy of having
> > infrequent mass protests, their fights with ANSWER, and their hostility
> > towards radicals indicates a deeper agenda.
> >
>
> I heard, can't remember where, that an unstated goal of UFJP is to take over
> the left flank of the Democratic Party. If so, then that would explain the
> above actions.
Of course that's the quite obvious, virtually stated goal, of the CoC/CP/UFPJ. It always has been from before UFPJ existed. But really it doesn't matter, for two reasons:
1. That's the more or less spontaneous goal of most of the rank-and-file of local peace groups. And it will continue to be their spontaneous (i.e., untheorized) political perspective.
2. But those local groups can't be controlled from the center: they are not chapters of a centralized party apparatus. This means that if there is a groundswell to the left (there isn't now), then those local chapters will make the 'plans' of the UFPJ irrelevant.
And there are a lot of good people in the nation "going along" with the UFPJ, more or less agreeing w ith it, but by no means controlled by it.
Let's keep the reverberations of "deeper agenda" out of analysis of the UFPJ. It's "deeper agenda" is completely on the surface. No conspiracy, just left-liberal intellectual opaqueness. Carrol