Antiwar Thought on the Right and Left

With much of the antiwar energy in American politics confined to the nativist "American First" movement, is there a way to revive the moral and philosophical underpinnings of genuine non-violence?

Hello folks, Derek here with the final entry in Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins’ special Foreign Exchanges series on the antiwar/non-violence movement as a political tradition. As I mentioned in the preface to his introductory piece, this series is being offered as a special for paid FX subscribers. I hope those who are interested in the piece will consider subscribing to FX to support Daniel’s work as well as everything else that goes on here. Please subscribe today:

---

I recently gave a talk at City College on antiwar/non-violence thought based on the ideas that have been discussed in this series. I hoped to make the case that there is a distinctive way of understanding this strand of thought from the French Revolution to the present. I stressed that, at least in the United States, antiwar/non-violence thought has been in steep decline since the Vietnam War, with occasional moments of revival such as protests in opposition to the US’ invasion of Iraq and most recently regarding US and Israeli actions in Gaza. In the talk, I highlighted the key ideas and figures in what I see as a distinct tradition of thought, and in doing so I made sure to point out its historical shortcomings and pitfalls based on my engagement with Domenico Losurdo’s Non-Violence: A History Beyond the Myth.

My view is that anyone who wants to defend antiwar/non-violence thought has to take seriously the types of criticism raised by Losurdo. As such, I presented to my audience the manner in which Losurdo showed: how many pacifists of the abolitionist movement opted for violence in the service of defeating slave-holding states; the absurdity of Tolstoy's belief that wars between states would eventually vanish from history; the hypocrisy of Gandhi defending the participation of Indians in Britain’s war efforts, such as in the Boer War; and how Western advocates of perpetual peace often had little problem with American and European imperialism. I did this in major part because I assumed that many in the audience would believe that non-violence and antiwar thought is morally indefensible. As such, one of my aims was to show that in many instances their concerns are justified. Pointing out legitimate criticisms is also why I found entering into dialogue with Losurdo useful, because, despite his many reservations, he makes a realistic case for “non-violence in a world prey to nuclear catastrophe.”

For Losurdo, the best case for non-violence entails a long and committed process of targeting the underlying social and militaristic conditions that give rise to warfare, such as the arms race, policies of war, preparations for war, and the installation of military bases. In my eyes, this seems far from utopian, and does not mesh comfortably with the long trajectory of progressive thinking. The antinuclear movement of the late 1970s/early 1980s would be a good example of trying to prepare for peace but not preparing for war.