To build peace, we need to build more than peace

Excerpt from Raymond Williams (1921 - 1988):

Necessary Linkages

"… the socialist contribution to the politics of nuclear disarmament must be more than simply collaborative, and must include solidarity with Third World struggles against an imperialist economic system which globally reproduces hunger and exploitation. This is no matter of riding the peace campaign for some partisan objectives. …

This can appear only to add to our burdens, for which our present strength is still insufficient. But this must be the final point of the present argument. It is, fortunately, still possible to generate movements for peace and for disarmament on the most general human grounds. That these are again growing is a significant gain against the culture and politics of violence. Yet alike for their intellectual adequacy and for extension of their support, it is necessary to reach beyond the moving and honourable refusals on which many of them still characteristically depend. To build peace, now more than ever, it is necessary to build more than peace. To refuse nuclear weapons, we have to refuse much more than nuclear weapons. Unless the refusals can be connected with such building, unless protest can be connected with and surpassed by significant practical construction, our strength will remain insufficient. It is then in making hope practical, rather than despair convincing, that we must resume and change and extend our campaigns."

* * *

This short excerpt is from the late Raymond Williams’ article in "Exterminism and Cold War", Verso Editions, 1982, pp. 65 – 85. The text above is from pp. 64 – 65. The ISBN # of the book is: 0-86091-746-0. Raymond Williams, in his article, is making explicit reference to 'anti-imperialist' movements. I am not a socialist, nor have I ever been one. Still, I wholeheartedly agree that "To build peace, now more than ever, it is necessary to build more than peace. To refuse nuclear weapons, we have to refuse much more than nuclear weapons".

For more info on Raymond Williams (31 August 1921 - 26 January 1988), you may visit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Williams

Apparently, the original article appeared in:
New Left Review I/124, November-December 1980
More info at:

http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=1572


==========

It seems to me that one of the first things that we need to build is trust. Many people who choose not to join a movement for disarmament or 'peace' need to be convinced that we are capable of building a political and economic system that can offer a higher level of security. Most people may never believe that sustainable peace can be promised by a 'man-made' political system. We, those who dare to offer 'global security', should at least convince them that we can predict, avoid, and suppress more instances of organized violence.

Followers of a purely nonviolent ideology or moral system have a vital role in creating such a climate of global security. I am aware that many people find such 'pure' nonviolent activists too weak and too naive. On many levels, I think they are wrong, and it may be possible to prove them wrong. However, nor do I think that it is realistic to suppress certain acts of organized violence only with methods of nonviolent activism. Those who claim otherwise should, of course, be welcome to try the methods that they think are best for the purpose. If they fail, they should not be authorized to stop others from trying different kinds of interventions --provided, of course, that they limit their harm (deadly harm, if need be) to those who are presently engaged in organized violence.

No doubt, those who adhere to 'purely nonviolent methods' will not trust those who are prepared to resort to quasi-military interventions. Fortunately or unfortunately, their opinions, prejudices, and fears are not the most critical for the creation of a system of trust. The vast majority of people who need to be convinced of the viability of a global security system need to be shown that the protectors and builders of peace have 'teeth' as well. No less importantly, those who are planning to engage in organized violence must be sent a clear message that they are not likely to 'get away with murder'.

Far too much loose talk has been made about "an eye for an eye leaving everybody blind". As I see it, a global security system, or a global justice system can be viable if and only if clear distinctions are made between innocence and guilt, between those who initiate violence and those who punish violent acts. Ideally, even some of those who are punished can be made to understand that their original crimes were far less excusable than the punishment that they receive (assuming that they continue to think that the punishment was unfair)...

In addition to the need to build trust in the capacity of peace-builders and peace-keepers to create a higher level of global security, there is also need to build trust that a higher level of economic security can be created under that system of security. No doubt, many of those who reap profits from wars cannot, and should not, be promised similar gains from a climate of peace. But we need to show that the vast majority of humankind stand to gain a great deal more (economically, as well as socially and morally) from times of peace.

I am opposed to those who argue that a single economic system needs to be imposed on all of humankind. I believe that a great variety of economic systems can be realized, provided that they are kept from harming each other, or even depriving each other of vital resources. One thing that the present system cannot offer or promise is 'intentional economic communities'. Once a system of global security is created, people can and should be given the freedom to move away from their local, regional, or 'national' economies, and form ties with like-minded people elsewhere on earth. They should also be given the freedom to travel, to migrate, and to start communities in new places.

In other words, although I believe that it is vital to build trust among those who are reluctant to support anti-war movements, although I believe that this trust should include trust in our ability to build a better economic system, I do not think that we should seek to create that trust by offering a detailed, 'positive' economic program. Instead, our program needs to be one that specifies many prohibitions that try to prevent economic harm, while making room for a wide variety of different economic systems. It is my view that it would be 'epistemically immodest' for anyone to pretend that there is a single best economic system for all humankind. But even if such a system is brought forward, and outperforms all other economic systems in a fair competition, it would be unjustifiable to impose such a system on those who do not wish to practice it. After all, economic success, efficiency, etc., are neither the sole nor the primary goals of all grown-ups, let alone all human beings. It is also unfair to deprive people of the 'freedom to fail' in ways that are likely to harm only themselves (and not their neighbors or the flora or fauna).

It seems to me that, presently, there is an attempt to avoid discussions of alternative economic systems. I do agree that there has been too much distraction and 'analysis paralysis' in the near past, owing to the demands by some communists and socialists that peace movements should first aim at abolishing capitalism. But I do not think that it is wise or even realistic to try to suppress all questions about alternative economic systems. Many people, throughout the world, risk governmental oppression for their anti-war activism. Many risk their very lives simply to show their opposition to wars. Those who are prepared to die for their ideas need to be given permission to make clear how they would prefer to live...

Also relevant to arguments against war and organized violence (including terrorism) are arguments for (or against) different value systems. Much of this can be distracting also. To pick comical examples, some people argue that world peace can be possible only after the conversion of all humankind to (some version of) Christianity, or Islam), or after a certain number of people practice Transcendental Meditation... Still, it is unwise and unfair to try to block all such arguments. As Arthur Koestler tried to address (with limited success) in his essay "Yogi and the Commissar", we need to strike a balance between the extreme positions concerning individual morality and bringing about social change.

[More on this later.]