[Marxism] Robin Hahnel on the antiwar movement

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

June 29, 2006 (SevenOaksMag.com)

A participatory peace: Looking inside the anti-war movement with Robin Hahnel

by Marla Renn

This interview was conducted via email in May 2006 by Marla Renn of the
Vancouver Participatory Economics Collective.  Robin Hahnel has taught
political economy at American University for 30 years.  He is a longtime
activist and author of many books, including Economic Justice and
Democracy: From Competition to Cooperation (Routledge, 2005).

Marla Renn:  As a veteran of the 1960's anti-war movement, and a
participant in today's anti-war movement, what differences and similarities
do you see between them?  What lessons can be taken from the 60's to help
build a worldwide movement for peace now?

Robin Hahnel:  The most striking difference between the anti-Vietnam war
movement and the anti-Iraq war movement is that the former started much
smaller, and only convinced a majority of Americans that we should withdraw
from Vietnam after ten years of organizing in the face of intense
hostility, but grew steadily in breadth and depth until the US government
finally relented and withdrew all US troops from Indo-China. In stark
contrast, the anti-Iraq war movement held its largest demonstration to date
before "operation shock and awe" even began, in less than a year convinced
a majority of Americans the war was launched under false pretenses rather
easily, and has declined in visibility and influence ever since. If public
opinion dictated policy American troops would have long departed Iraq and
the US presence in Indo-China would have lasted even longer than it did.

As important as public opinion is, it does not determine US foreign policy.
As long as both major political parties are firmly in the pockets of the
military industrial complex, and as long as both major political parties
believe the US should run the world and only disagree over what tactics to
use, it will take more than public opinion to stop imperial ventures. So
until a movement demanding that our government renounce all imperial
ambitions forces those who preside over US foreign policy to redeploy the
vast productive resources currently devoted to expanding our prodigious
war-making capabilities to peaceful purposes, and to embrace the wisdom of
peaceful cooperation and the rule of international law, anti-war movements
in the United States have no choice but to raise the costs of pursuing
particular imperial ventures if we hope to stop them.

While it pains me to say this, I believe the leadership of today's anti-war
movement deserves some of the blame for the movement's growing impotence.
For example, holding off on organizing major anti-war demonstrations in the
fall of 2004 may have made sense since every progressive organization in
the country was understandably focused first and foremost on re-defeating
Bush-Cheney that November. But failing to call for major demonstrations the
following spring was a terrible mistake. In general I think current
anti-war leadership has been too passive and orchestrated opposition in
ways that are too predictable and therefore too ignorable. In some respects
current anti-war leaders have done better than their counterparts during
the Vietnam War: they have made it clear we are not anti-soldier. They have
minimized the inevitable friction between the anti-imperial and liberal
wings of the peace movement. And they have not gotten suckered into debates
over the details of withdrawal. These are by no means small or
insignificant accomplishments. Nonetheless, a majority of the country wants
out. The opposition party continues to sit on the fence and shows every
sign of continuing to do so right into the next presidential election
cycle. It is up to the anti-war movement to make sure that business in
America does not proceed as usual until the will of the majority is
enacted, and we need leadership who understands this is their job.

On the other hand I do not believe the different trajectories of the
anti-Vietnam and anti-Iraq war movements are primarily due to differences
in leadership. The anti-Vietnam war movement was part of a rising tide of
progressive social activism in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s
that began with the civil rights and black power movements, spread to the
new left student movement, and led to the re-birth of the women's
liberation movement and birth of the environmental movement. The anti-Iraq
war movement, on the other hand, has struggled to grow in a political era
when conservative social activism and power has reached its zenith. It is
pointless to blame the leadership of today's anti-war movement for this
underlying problem. The important lesson to draw is that turning the United
States away from the path of empire will not be accomplished by an anti-war
movement on its own. Only in combination with powerful movements pushing
progressive agendas forward in every sphere of social life can the peace
movement secure its goal. Nonetheless, it's high time the US anti-war
movement kicked some butt!

For the full interview, see:
http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/features/pareconandwar.html

--

www.marxmail.org


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism