Some Questions the Radical Peace Movement Should Be Asking Itself

Gary Moffatt

A distinction can be drawn between radicals, who go to the root of a problem, and liberals, who attack individual symptoms of it.

I believe that radicals, as people who do wish to deal with the root causes of problems, should be discussing a much broader range of questions among themselves. Unfortunately, there is at present no mechanism for these questions to be discussed and debated.

What follows is a partial listing of some questions radicals should be thinking about and discussing among themselves if we are to evolve a strategy for basic social change:

What is Radicalism? How is it distinguishable from liberalism?

To what extent should radicals put their energy into liberal (single-issue) movements? Should radicals try to radicalize liberal movements, or create their own, or both?

What is nonviolence? When (if ever) is it permissible for a pacifist to use force? Should the radical peace movement consider itself nonviolent? Is property destruction or theft compatible with nonviolence, and if so when? Is nonviolence more applicable to industrialized countries than the Third World? Is it hypocrisy to denounce violence here while endorsing it in El Salvador?

Is protest of state policies worthwhile? Does it merit a large proportion of our energy? Is nonviolent civil disobedience anything more than just another form of protest? Should we be prepared to carry civil disobedience to the point of long jail sentences?

Who are our natural allies? How do we reach them? Should we regard certain people (i.e corporate executives, politicians) as inherently evil? If nobody is inherently evil, how do we reach executives, politicians etc.? Are the police our enemies? How should we deal with them?

Is the state inherently evil? Are those who run the state inherently evil?

Is it worthwhile spending a large proportion of our energy on workers who produce weapons?

What are the most effective forms of public education? How do we change peoples' attitudes?

Is building an alternative society a means towards basic social change or a cop-out? How can urban and rural communities contribute to the social change struggle? How can isolated individuals be plugged into affinity groups? Are we capable of reaching any sort of consensus on what sort of society we are striving for?

How can we act to bring about the society we would like to live in? Is it valid to assume that we can create basic social change by creating a viable social alternative and enticing large numbers of people into it?

Should we reject high technology or attempt to make use of it, and if so how? To what extent is it possible to control our image on the mass media? Should we try to create our own mass media? Why is there so little support for this? Why do attempts to improve communications between social change projects usually fail? How can we create an alternative culture? To what extent should we reject the present one?

What can we learn from aboriginal culture? How much of it do we wish to adopt? Should we consciously strive for a mystic pantheist and/or pagan religion? Is drug use revolutionary, counter-revolutionary or neither? In what ways have technical changes since WWII altered our thinking processes?

How can we best help Third World liberation struggles? Should we send them arms? Shouldn't we give at least moral support to groups doing sabotage or repudiate them? To what extent is it possible or desirable to control children's environment? Should pornographic and violent material be censored; if so by whom?

A longer version of this article appeared in Network, a newsletter which is no longer publishing.

(CX5004)

Subject Headings

Activism/Radicalism  Non-violence  Pacifism  Peace  Radicalism

Donate or Volunteer