Chris Marsh, 9th January 2009

Only three people turned up at the Exeter Socialists meeting on 8th January 2009, perhaps because the ‘second Thursday’ was too early in the month for the usual people to have thought of coming. Or we are entering a period of the doldrums, which happens, probably, to most groups like ours. The three of us talked about this, and the problem small lefty and other ‘alternative’ groups have, which is that we all pay lip service to wanting to be inclusive, and get together with other groups which may be sympathetic, but we all have strong views, and so we come together only to ‘split’ again, or dwindle away. I observed that there is an enormous number of alternative groups, all opposed to some degree to the one monolithic dominant discourse.

We then talked about a suggestion which one of the missing regulars had made, which was that we should have a collection and donate the money to Exeter Palestine Solidarity Campaign ( EPSC) to help fund seats on the coach to a demonstration in London for people who are hard up. With only three of us there, it would hardly be a ‘collection’, more individual contributions. In the course of discussing this, I raised my doubts about the value of the demo, and tried to explain why, which was difficult to explain and have it well received, so I shall try again here. And I have to say that the ‘dilemma’ in my title is genuine: I do not know what is the ‘right’ thing to do, advise, encourage, support, or whatever, but I do feel that there are issues here of interest to those who call themselves ‘socialists’.

I have called myself ‘socialist’ for most of my life, and also ‘pacifist’ and ‘environmentalist’, although I began to be aware of the various concerns those terms imply as an earnest child, long before I came to associate them with those labels. The concerns came from my father, who worked at home as a graphic artist, and used to talk to his children while his hands and not much of his brain were engaged in various repetitive tasks. He was a socialist because he cared about people, wanting fairness and a fulfilling life for everyone. He was a pacifist because of his experience of the Second World War, and his conviction that there should be more intelligent ways of solving disputes than fighting, and he saw world government or oversight by men (sic) with very superior intelligence as the way that could be achieved. He was not patriotic, advised us not to give automatic respect to anyone, but to judge people on their merits – especially their intelligence; you could say he was an ‘intellectual snob’. He called himself an agnostic, but was adamantly anti-religion because of its stupidity. (The ‘environmentalist’ bit is less relevant to this discussion, except to say that he regarded other species and ecosystems as every bit as important as humanity.) Although I came to question, re-examine and revise – often to deepen – the views I adopted from my father, I am still a ‘socialist’, a ‘pacifist’, and (although I’d use other terms) an ‘environmentalist’.

On being a ‘pacifist’, a number of questions arise. Can one validly call oneself a ‘pacifist’ other than in war time, when the challenge is to be a conscientious objector, prepared to be judged a coward and perhaps be sent to prison? Is a conviction that other ways must be, and always can be, found to resolve conflicts than resorting to violence enough to make one a ‘pacifist’? Is condemning the industries and occupations which are involved in, and gain by, military action and military preparations (misnamed ‘defence’) enough to make one a ‘pacifist’? Are there degrees and versions of being a pacifist, or situations where even a pacifist should approve of and support acts of violence or military intervention? All of this can be interesting to discuss and debate, and I have done so in situations, and in groups, where discussion and debate are ‘what people do’.

I have belonged to three groups which are committed to pacifism: first the Socialist Party of Great Britain, a Marxist socialist Party, whose members went to prison in both World Wars for their pacifist stance, not from religious conviction and so not considered legitimate; second the Peace Tax Campaign, a pressure group campaigning for the right to have the ‘military’ portion of one’s taxes use instead for peaceful conflict resolution; and third, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) which is a ‘Peace Church’ (I was a Quaker Universalist, and continued not to believe in any god).

Those three presented few challenges to my pacifist convictions. In addition, I have belonged for a very long time to CND, where some members are not pacifists, instead holding various positions on the use of military force, including ‘anything but nuclear weapons’, but where a pacifist position is accepted and respected. I have been active in CND: going on many marches and demos, promoting the campaign in various ways, and supporting and spending time with the women at Greenham Common.

So far, I have indicated an atmosphere of ‘pacifist dilemma’, but nothing very challenging. The big challenge for me came when I encountered EPSC. It began in 2003, when I was on a coach with people from Exeter Stop the War, returning from a demo against the war in Iraq – not the ‘big one’ in February, which I went on with several members of my family, but a subsequent one. I was handed a leaflet promoting an event called ‘ Palestine Day’ to be held at the Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies at Exeter University. I went along, and there was a bazaar with Palestinian products for sale, and a lecture session in the afternoon, including a talk by Dr David Halpin about his taking emergency supplies by ship to Palestine. During the course of the discussion which followed I raised my hand and asked what the collective groan from the audience told me was a naïve question, about whether non-violent resistance along Gandhian lines would serve the Palestinians better than ‘terrorist’ acts. I was told in no uncertain terms that it was entirely down to those suffering Occupation by Israel to decide how to resist, and we have to support them regardless. I was also told not to refer to these acts of resistance as ‘terrorist’, it was the Israelis who were the terrorists.

I accepted the arguments, and I don’t think I thought about any challenge to my pacifism, during two years when I was a member of the ‘core group’ at EPSC, and working extremely hard for the Palestinian cause. Then, almost by chance, it all came unstuck. I was over the same period a member of the Tuesday Group, a philosophical discussion group which met on the first Tuesday of each month at Schumacher College in Dartington, and I got into discussion with a member of that group, Tom Welch, on the Quaker idea that ‘there is that of God in every man’, so that one should love the sinner if not the sin. This brought up the thought that in EPSC, in supporting Palestinian acts of resistance, even suicide bombing, we were ‘loving the sin as well as the sinner’, so maybe we should always love the sin as well, in this case accepting what the Israelis felt they had to do, however awful the consequences. Tom was intrigued with this, as an idea, and an email discussion involving one of his extensive lists, resulted. Then I made the mistake of passing some of this on to someone in EPSC, at the same time saying that if this idea were adopted, we would stop the ‘anti-Zionist rhetoric’, which I had been uncomfortable with. My practical thought, having become newly aware of my life-long commitment to pacifism, was that from a position of understanding and accepting both sides, one might have more influence and success as a peace-builder.

After that, it all went wrong. I was not understood, and one or two prominent members of the group came to believe that I had accused them of anti-Semitism, and they deeply resented that, and I could not continue to work with the group. Two years later, the situation in Palestine having worsened terribly, I wanted to get involved again, and I had actually forgotten the grievance against me, but I was told I was not welcome.

And now? And what about the demonstration on 10 th January? And ‘should’ people go on that? And ‘should’ I have contributed to funds to allow someone to go? (I say ‘should’ because that is what one of the two others at the recent Exeter Socialists meeting said.) What I said to him was that the demo will not help. Demos are good when you are there, the feeling of being with people who feel the same as you do. But even the Big One in 2003 failed in its objectives (much that one can discuss here…), and smaller ones are just ignored, not reported unless there are violent incidents, and the numbers always played down. Later it occurred to me that the demo could even have an adverse effect, by encouraging young Moslem extremists to carry out terrorist acts. Also I do feel that it may be counterproductive to take sides in other people’s struggles, even if there seems to be justification for supporting the weaker side which has suffered more, and even when there are wider global issues of hegemony or imperialism. It may be that one can only ‘speak truth to power’, as Quakers say, from a position of neutral concern and ‘love’ for all involved.

I don’t claim to be ‘right’ about any of this, but I do say it is a dilemma for a pacifist, and potentially a good topic for our group of Exeter Socialist to discuss.

Finally, two of us at the little meeting agreed that buying Palestinian ‘Zaytoun’ olive oil was the best way of supporting them, the other hadn’t heard of it. One thing I do firmly believe, and said so to the ‘shoulding’ person, is that all we can really change is how we live our own lives, and that way we can make a difference.

top