A participatory peace: Looking inside the anti-war movement with Robin Hahnel
June 29, 2006
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!

MR:  In the 1970's you and Michael Albert began to outline an economic model known as participatory economics (Parecon).  Could you provide a brief sketch of it and explain why you feel it would be desirable?

RH:  When Michael Albert and I were young New Left activists studying for our PhD in economics in the early 1970s, we came to the conclusion that the vision of a self-managed economy shared by many anarchists, council communists, syndicalists, and utopian socialists was essentially sound, but, unfortunately, these economic visionaries had failed to provide a coherent model explaining precisely how a libertarian socialist alternative to capitalism could work. Skeptics accused those, such as ourselves, who called for democratic planning by producers and consumers themselves of deluding ourselves and others. The famous British economist, Alec Nove, issued the challenge succinctly: "In a complex industrial economy the interrelation between its parts can be based in principle either on freely chosen negotiated contracts [i.e., markets], or on a system of binding instructions from planning offices [i.e., central planning.] There is no third way." The model of a participatory economy was initially developed to prove that skeptics like Nove were wrong. There is an alternative to markets and central planning, a "third way" where self-managing councils of workers and consumers coordinate their interrelated activities equitably and efficiently through a participatory, democratic planning procedure. We went on to argue that this "third way," now known as "participatory economics," is not only feasible but highly desirable.

A participatory economy is designed to promote: (a) economic justice, defined as economic reward commensurate with effort, or sacrifice; (b) economic democracy, or self-management, defined as decision making power in proportion to the degree one is affected by a decision; and (c) solidarity, defined as concern for the well being of others — all to be achieved without sacrificing economic efficiency while promoting a diversity of economic life styles. The major institutions used to achieve these goals are: (1) democratic councils of workers and consumers, (2) jobs balanced for empowerment and desirability, (3) remuneration according to effort as judged by one’s work mates, and (4) a participatory planning procedure in which councils and federations of workers and consumers propose and revise their own activities under rules designed to yield outcomes that are efficient and equitable.

 
MR:  What is the relationship between capitalism and war?

RH:  This question has long been debated. Many Marxists argued that once capitalism became the dominant economic system in the world, it also became the root cause of war in the modern era: "Capitalism means imperialism and imperialism means war. Eliminate capitalism and you will eliminate imperialism and war." I have always believed this is too simplistic. I believe capitalism does drive societies to war in a number of different ways that are important to understand, and I believe achieving world peace will remain difficult, if not impossible, until we replace the economics of competition and greed with the economics of equitable cooperation. But the roots of war run deeper than economic dynamics alone and replacing capitalism will not guarantee world peace.

Having said this, it is important to understand how capitalism contributes to war. Capitalism legitimates the pursuit of greed through power. Capitalism drives corporations to expand their access to sources of raw materials and cheap labor. Capitalism drives corporations to seek customers overseas. And capitalism grants these same corporations ample means to influence those who guide a nation's foreign policy. Capitalism concentrates economic wealth and power in the hands of large corporations, permits these corporations to own and control the major media, and allows these corporations to use all their wealth and power to ply politicians to act in their interests. This has proven to be a disastrous recipe time and time again, leading the governments of many capitalist countries to pursue imperial foreign policies that serve the interests of their major corporations not only at the expense of the citizens of the countries falling under their dominion, but also at the expense of a majority of their own citizens who shoulder the lion's share of the costs of empire and receive little of the benefits.

But it would be a mistake to reduce the logic of empire to economic calculus alone. Many who fight in imperial wars do so because they believe their country is threatened. Many who fight believe they are helping those whose country they invade and occupy. Many who fight do so because they believe those they kill or subjugate are racially inferior to themselves. Many who fight believe there must always be wars and warriors, and being a warrior is part of what it means to be a man. And finally, many who fight, or who work in the military industrial complex, do so because they have few alternatives and that is where jobs are to be found. In other words, imperial war is as much the result of misguided patriotism, racism, sexism, militarism, and individual self-preservation as it is the result of corporate self-interest.

MR: How can peace movements impact economies governed by competition and greed?  Why have peace movements thus far not been able to end war?

RH:  Peace movements cannot stand idly by and wait for the economics of competition and greed to be replaced by the economics of equitable cooperation. Peace movements must rage against war and all its causes in societies waging unjust wars, which are most often societies who also practice the economics of competition and greed. This means one job of the peace movement is to dispel the myth that empire benefits the average citizen. It is pointless to deny that there are material benefits of empire. But it is usually the case that the distribution of the benefits and costs of empire is such that, on balance, ordinary citizens are worse off. Moreover, the dynamics of empire invariably shift the internal balance of power further in favor of the ruling elite. So it is important for peace movements to explain that an accurate material calculus reveals that ordinary people are usually worse off and further disempowered when their governments pursue imperial ambitions.

However, peace movements should never make this material calculus their major argument against empire. It is the first responsibility of citizens to prevent a government that purports to speak for them from engaging in imperial policies because imperialism is wrong. It is wrong to subvert the sovereignty of other nations. It is wrong to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries -- undermining regimes that strive for sovereignty and propping up regimes that acquiesce to domination. It is wrong to use military, economic, and political power to seize the lion's share of the benefits from international investment and trade from less developed countries. Moreover, empires never last forever, and chickens always come home to roost. And we can all live much better in a world of peaceful coexistence ruled by international law where the benefits of international economic cooperation are shared equitably than we do in a world of rising and falling empires.

There is no reason to believe ridding the world of war is an easy task. Humans have waged war on one another from time immemorial. As we become more numerous, and our weaponry becomes more deadly and environmentally destructive, the consequences of failing to kick this uniquely human habit become ever more frightening. But we are a species capable of reason and we can and do learn from our mistakes. Nor is the peace movement without its troops. Phyllis Bennis, who heads a team of anti-war activists at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC, likes to point out that there are still two super powers in the world today. The Soviet Union is gone, but the United States is not a super power without a world-class challenger. The world peace movement is the other super power, and we should never underestimate our potential and our power.

MR:  What insights can Participatory Economics offer those working within the anti-war movement?  Does it offer any strategies in terms of movement building and achieving world peace? 

RH:  Participatory Economics is based on the conviction that people can manage their own economic activities and cooperate with others efficiently through fair and democratic procedures. Moreover, when we do so we can be more effective than when a small elite tells the vast majority of us what to do. That lesson applies to the peace movement as well. The peace movement is made up of millions of individuals and tens of thousands of peace groups and organizations. When peace groups initiate their own activities, and when peace groups form organizations and coalitions governed by participatory, democratic procedures to coordinate their efforts, the peace movement is more powerful. But this is not the way most people are used to working together. People are used to hierarchy. People come into the peace movement with racist and sexist attitudes whether or not they realize it. Just as participatory economics builds institutional correctives for habits that are socially dysfunctional -- like balanced job complexes and minority and women's caucuses -- the peace movement also needs to develop correctives for predictable weaknesses people bring with them from their life experiences outside the movement. 

[A longer version of this interview can be found at: www.vanparecon.resist.ca .]

Marla Renn lives in Vancouver and is a member of the Vancouver Participatory Economics Collective.  For more information visit the collective at www.vanparecon.resist.ca

Home Features David and Goliath Stop smirking, Bettman Books this week Essays & Reviews The Big Sellout Operation Filmmaker Salud!