Social Defence, Social Change
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOCIAL DEFENCE, SOCIAL CHANGE by Brian Martin FREEDOM PRESS London 1993 First published 1993 by Freedom Press 84B Whitechapel High St London E1 7QX © Brian Martin & Freedom Press ISBN 0 900384 69 7 There are minor formatting differences between this electronic version and the printed edition (which is still available for purchase from Freedom Press). Hence a few entries in the index may be off by one page. Typeset by Brian Martin Printed in Gt Britain by Aldgate Press, London E1 7QX Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Some basics 4 3 Elite reform or grassroots initiative? 27 4 Steven Huxley and “nonviolent” struggle 38 5 Lessons from the Fiji coups 50 6 Nonviolence against hypocrisy in the Gulf 66 7 Revolutionary social defence 69 8 A tool for feminists? 80 9 What about the police? 89 10 Social defence and the environment 96 11 Science and technology for nonviolent struggle 106 12 Telecommunications for nonviolent struggle 111 13 Towards a resilient political system 120 14 Towards a resilient economic system 132 15 Postscript: Power tends to corrupt, even social defence 141 Further reading 145 Index 148 Acknowledgements This book would have never been possible without the support, encouragement and insight of many activists and scholars over the years, especially members of Schweik Action Wollongong and Canberra Peacemakers and many correspondents from around the world. I thank Robert Burrowes, Felice and Jack Cohen-Joppa, Steve Huxley, Denis Pym, Christine Schweitzer, Miriam Solomon, Ralph Summy, Wendy Varney and John Zube for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the text. John Zube’s comments were so extensive that it was impossible to do justice to them. Those who would like to learn about his vision of “panarchy” can reach him at 7 Oxley Street, Berrima NSW 2577, Australia. Parts of this book have been adapted from previous writings: “Social defence: arguments and actions,” in Brian Martin et al., Nonviolent Struggle and Social Defence, edited by Shelley Anderson and Janet Larmore (London: War Resisters’ International, 1991), pp. 81-141 (chapter 2); “Social defence: elite reform or grassroots initiative?” Social Alternatives, vol. 6, no. 2, April 1987, pp. 19-23 (chapter 3); “Learning about ‘nonviolent’ struggle: lessons from Steven Huxley,” Nonviolence Today, #22, August- September 1991, pp. 11-14 (chapter 4); “Lessons in nonviolence from the Fiji coups,” Gandhi Marg, vol. 10, no. 6, September 1988, pp. 326-339 (chapter 5); “Resist repressive regimes,” leaflet by Schweik Action Wollongong, 1987 (table on social offence in chapter 5); “Gulf War shows it’s time to set our own agenda,” Peace News, July 1991, p. 2 (chapter 6); “Revolutionary social defence,” Bulletin of Peace Proposals, vol. 22, no. 1, March 1991, pp. 97-105 (chapter 7); “Science for non-violent struggle,” Science and Public Policy, vol. 19, no. 1, February 1992, pp. 55-58 (chapter 11); Schweik Action Wollongong, “Telecommunications for nonviolent struggle,” Civilian-Based Defense: News & Opinion, vol. 7, no. 6, August 1992, pp. 7-10 (chapter 12). In each case I’ve revised the material. Referencing has been kept to a minimum. I would be pleased to correspond with anyone concerning matters covered in this book. Contact me at: Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia; e-mail: [email protected]. Brian Martin, Social Defence, Social Change (London: Freedom Press, 1993) 1 Introduction The idea of social defence—namely of abolishing military forces and relying in their stead on nonviolent struggles by the general population—is extremely radical. Yet a large amount of the writing on this subject is set within the most conservative of assumptions about society. It is assumed that it is somehow possible to introduce social defence and yet leave much of society the same: the same economic system, the same political structures, the same scientific and health systems, and so on. To me this is implausible. The military is one of the keys to protecting existing systems of power. Remove the military and the scope for change would be greatly increased. Furthermore, training people in methods of nonviolent struggle against outside aggressors would also give them the skills to challenge employers, politi- cians, sexual exploiters and many others. Many nonviolent activists are well aware of the connection between nonviolent action and social change. That is exactly why they are responsive to the idea of social defence. By contrast, though, some of the most prominent writers on social defence—such as Gene Sharp, Adam Roberts and Theodor Ebert—take a position that downplays social change. They focus on defending the state and the existing society. They see social defence as a logical option to be implemented by governments. My disagreement with these scholars is a friendly one. They have contributed enormously to increasing knowledge about nonvio- lent struggle and to public awareness of social defence. Indeed, it is 1 2 Introduction precisely because their contributions are so important that their assumptions should be scrutinised and alternatives considered. This book is a contribution to that process. I have tried to spell out some of the radical implications and connections that flow from the idea of social defence. Inevitably some of this is speculative. People’s experiences with nonviolent struggle are necessary to test and to reject or refine ideas about social defence. In chapters 2-7, I present the basics of social defence and argue for a grassroots perspective, an offensive orientation and a revolu- tionary agenda. Chapter 2 gives a basic introduction to social defence; it may be skipped by those who are familiar with the ideas. Chapter 3 argues that it is futile to expect governments to implement social defence. Grassroots action towards social defence is required. In chapter 4, I review Steven Huxley’s book on the Finnish constitutional insurgency in order to extract some insights for the development of social defence. The military coups in Fiji are the focus of chapter 5. I describe the use of nonviolent action against the coups and argue that social defence should not be solely defensive. Nonviolent activists need to be willing to intervene against repression elsewhere. Chapter 7, on “revolutionary social defence,” argues that the introduction of social defence may be a snowballing process analogous to the rise of the nation-state. Chapters 8-14 are short discussions of links between social defence and different social structures or issues: patriarchy, the police, the environment, science policy, and political and economic systems. In each case, I spell out some of the radical implications of social defence for the organisation of society. Rather than being cautious, I’ve tried to see how far the argument can be taken. Therefore, I don’t expect anyone to agree with all my conclusions, which are necessarily tentative. What I think is important is that these issues be discussed and, more importantly, brought into the planning of campaigns and initiatives. Undoubtedly, ideas about social defence will need to be revised in the light of practice. There are quite a number of topics not addressed in this book which warrant treatment, such as industry, health, education, lesbian and gay rights, racism, immigration and nationalism. My intent is not to be comprehensive but to illustrate the far-reaching implications of social defence. Introduction 3 In chapters 8-14, I start with social defence and draw implica- tions for all sorts of areas. Therefore it might seem that I’m putting social defence at the core of a radical programme. This is decep- tive. Just the same sort of implications (or similar ones, anyway) could be drawn starting from one of the other areas—on one condi- tion. The starting point must be people having the power to collec- tively shape their own lives. Social defence does this through organising communities to use nonviolent action against aggression and repression. Other starting points would do the same, such as feminism through empowering women or grassroots democracy through empowering communities. These chapters then are about drawing connections between a grassroots approach to social defence and grassroots approaches to other issues. An assumption behind my analysis is that campaigns and strate- gies to introduce social defence should be linked to other campaigns and strategies towards a more egalitarian, participatory society. Social defence should be part of a process of social change. Brian Martin, Social Defence, Social Change (London: Freedom Press, 1993) 2 Some basics Defining social defence Social defence is nonviolent community resistance to aggression as an alternative to military defence. It is based on widespread protest, persuasion, noncooperation and intervention in order to oppose military aggression or political repression. It uses methods such as boycotts, acts of disobedience, strikes, demonstrations and setting up alternative institutions. Defining something is a political act, and so it is worthwhile looking at this definition of social defence as “nonviolent commu- nity resistance to aggression as an alternative to military defence.” This definition says that the resistance is community resistance—not national resistance, which is the usual focus for military defence and for much thinking and writing about social defence. My view is that the focus should be on communities defending themselves and each other. Sometimes the communities will be nations, but often not.