De-Developing the United States through
Nonviolence
By Bill Moyer
Reprinted
from IDOC-North America, 1973. (www.idoc-human-renewal.org/idoc/profile.html)
(This speech on
nonviolent direct action was given at an international conference of ecology
groups in Holland in 1972.)
©
William Moyer 1973
“We are as rich as our ability to do without
things.” Thoreau
It
is conventional wisdom to argue that the less “advanced” countries should
strive to become like the most industrialized countries, for example, like the
United States. Here William Moyer argues for a reverse approach, de-developing
the countries which are putting the most severe pressure on the ecosphere. He
shows how the strategies of militant nonviolent action might be employed in
this cause.
Ecology
activists need a long-range strategy and a powerful method for change. In this
presentation, I will advocate de-development—the
reduction of production and consumption of material goods—of the United States
as a long-range strategy. I will also suggest that the American civil
rights movement’s powerful but neglected
weapon of nonviolent campaign-movement is a means for implementing this
strategy. Finally, a campaign-movement for a moratorium on atomic energy
will be described. (1)
Economic
growth is a universally accepted elixir for solving social problems. It has
been a point of agreement among business and government, the oppressed,
militants, and humanitarians. Unquestioned faith in Western-type growth and
development, however, has been challenged by recent events: rapid economic
growth with increased poverty, recognition of the limits of resources and
absorbing capacities of the environment, and the ending of poverty by China
without going through the stages of Western development.
To
begin, it might be instructive to imagine a world in which the impossible dream
of Western development was achieved. If all the nations achieved U.S. per capita
conditions and levels of consumption, their problems would still be immense
regardless of their affluence. Every city would have massive slums and
unsafe streets. The top 2% of the world’s population would hold the same amount
of wealth as the bottom 94%. National budgets would officially spend $1.4
trillion on military production each year. About 75 million workers would be
officially unemployed, another 30 million would be unofficially unemployed, and
170 million would still be hungry. In mainland China, if per capita American
conditions were attained, 22 million people now working would become unemployed,
35 million who are now adequately fed would become hungry, and massive slums
and crime would return to China’s cities. These conditions would most likely
precipitate another people’s revolution. (2)
Moreover,
it would be ecologically disastrous if the rest of the world were brought up to
today’s United States consumption rate: there are not enough resources
(including minerals, fossil fuels, air, water), and the environment’s
pollution-absorption capacity is not great enough. The world’s annual consumption
would increase sevenfold, depleting within this century almost every key
nonrenewable resource. It is hard to imagine a sevenfold increase in the rate
of environmental deterioration, not to mention that American production and
consumption is supposed to triple by the year 2000. Without numerous
technological miracle breakthroughs which reduce environmental destruction (so
far, most have increased it), even if this generation survived, the next one
wouldn’t. (3) Complete world development, however, may never occur. Not even
the U.N.’s most idealistic planners expect the poor nations to ever achieve
full development.
In
the real world of today, the consequences of Western-type economic growth are
disastrous for the poverty-stricken majority of the Third World. After the
“Decade of Progress,” World Bank President Robert McNamara laments, “The basic
problems affecting the lives of the developing peoples are getting worse, not
better, despite a good record of economic growth.” And the U.N. reports that
there are more sick, undernourished, and uneducated people in 1970 than ten
years before, and that it will be worse during the decade ahead. Even in
Brazil, with one of the world’s highest economic growth rates for five years,
the Economic Minister estimates that only 5 million people are now better off,
while 50 million people are not better off, and 40 million had their living
standard eroded. (4) Massive economic growth in the capitalist world widens the
gap between the rich and poor nations. It also widens the gap between haves and
have-nots within the poor countries; while benefits go to the affluent, the
conditions of the poor deteriorate.
On
the other hand, while poverty runs rampant in capitalist Third World countries,
China has eliminated abject poverty without going through the stages of modern
economic growth. The Chinese success at ending poverty with only half of the
Brazilian per capita gross national product reveals the absurdity of using
economic growth as the major guideline to measure or guide poor nations’
efforts to end poverty. (5) Using this standard, Brazil should either cut its
present GNP in half or increase its population four times to reach the same per
capita GNP at which China ended its poverty! Rather than Western-type economic growth, it seems that
political-economic independence and a social system which first meets people’s
basic needs and which distributes resources equitably is required for poor
nations to end poverty.
Why the United States Must De-Develop
It
is obvious that economic growth and development towards U.S. levels does not
solve the world’s problems. In fact, the U.S.’s present level of consumption is
a cause of those problems. Devouring an
estimated 40% of the world’s annually consumed resources while comprising only
6% of the world’s land and population, the U.S. gluttonously consumes an
iniquitous share of the finite resources available. For several reasons, even the present level
of U.S. consumption is immoral and unjust, not to mention the threefold
increase planned within this century.
First,
the resources and environment of future generations are being used up and
damaged; without miracles from technology, most key nonrenewable resources will
run out and the environment will be unable to support life for future generations.
Until such miracles are proven realities, the U.S. should de-develop.
Second,
a zero-sum game exists between Americans and the world’s poor—the more one
consumes, the less the other consumes. The theoretical impossibility of both
the U.S. and the Third World’s majority to greatly increase their consumption
has already been argued. In today’s real world, this conflict transfigures into
diabolical practical realities. To maintain its levels of production and
consumption, for example, the US. must be assured of getting increasing amounts
of the resources (because of its own decreasing reserves) of poor countries,
and at a fraction of their open market value.
This,
in turn, requires strong American support of unpopular and dictatorial regimes
which maintain political and police oppression while serving American
interests, to the detriment of their own poor majorities. If, on the other
hand, Third World people controlled their political economies, the export
prices of their primary products would be significantly increased (as the
oil-producing countries are now doing). They could then use more of their
resources themselves (much of the land now used to grow export cash crops—such
as coffee, cocoa, bananas, tea, rubber—would be used to feed their own hungry,
for example). The quantity of extracted resources could be reduced both to keep
prices up and to preserve them for future use. A reduction in American
consumption would also result from an independent Third World as a consequence
of reduced American overseas profits, royalties, and fees.
Third,
the political and economic prerequisites for American high-consumption, as
indicated above, require suppression of democracy in poor countries.
Fourth,
the maintenance of dictatorships, in turn, requires that the U.S. economy
produce vast amounts of military weapons and necessitates never-ending wars.
The U.S. will have to equip dictators’ armies throughout the Third World to
eternally fight peoples’ liberation movements, and the U.S. military will
continually have to directly intervene, as in Indochina, when regimes collapse.
There will never be a peace dividend because there will never be a peace as
long as the U.S. must protect its inordinate level of consumption at the top of
the capitalist world’s political-economic chain.
Nonviolent Campaign-Movements and Social
Change
Powerful
methods of social change are needed to oppose the social forces causing
environmental deterioration and oppression of poor peoples. In recent years,
however, nonviolent direct action groups have tended to use the less-powerful
techniques of one-day marches, rallies, pickets, and guerrilla theater, during
which opponents have too easily been able to go on vacation or to watch
football games on television. Ecology
and other action groups could greatly increase their effectiveness by using the
methods of the nonviolent campaign-movements which were so successful during
the civil rights movement in the early 1960s.
On
the assumption that the nonviolent campaign-movement method is seldom used
because people are unfamiliar with it, a brief description of some of its basic
principles and organizing techniques will be presented, with examples drawn
from past campaigns.
Two
scenarios of past campaigns
At
the White House, in January, 1965, President Johnson told Martin Luther King
and others that he could not advocate a voting rights bill that year because of
an obstinate Congress. During the next few months, however, the voting rights
movement escalated its campaign in Selma, Alabama. Throughout February, there
were repeated attempts at voting registration by blacks, along with supporting
marches and demonstrations, that were to culminate in a march from Selma to
Montgomery, the state capital, on March 7. On that Sunday afternoon, however,
Alabama state troopers charged into the lines of 525 marchers just after they
had crossed the now infamous Edmund Petus Bridge outside of Selma. Troopers on
foot freely clubbed unarmed, nonviolent marchers in the front ranks, and
troopers on horseback savagely pursued those retreating across the bridge.
Sixteen people were hospitalized and 50 more were given emergency medical
treatment. Through the eyes of the national and international press, the world
watched with bated breath this crisis as well as others that followed. The
50-mile march was belatedly completed at the end of the month with a victorious
rally of 25,000 people in front of the state capitol building in
Montgomery.
The
blatant and violent denial of the basic democratic right to vote revealed by
the campaign impelled people and organizations throughout the nation and the
world to actively support a voting rights bill. Many people went to Selma and
Montgomery to join the demonstrations, others acted through established
religious or civic organizations, and new groups formed especially for the
voting rights campaign. Thousands of unaffiliated individuals urged their
Congresspeople and President to pass a strong voting rights law. Local supporting demonstrations were held in
hundreds of cities throughout the country. Although the Selma campaign had
ended by April, the upswell of public pressure continued until a strong bill
was written by President Johnson and passed by Congress in August.
In
the spring of 1971, a more recent nonviolent campaign-movement was begun by a
less heralded, ad hoc group to which I belong in Philadelphia. President
Nixon’s administration had publicly announced that it had stopped foreign aid
as well as all other shipments to Pakistan’s military government, which was murderously
invading Bangladesh. However, we learned that freighters were carrying a steady
flow of American military and economic materials to Pakistan. The idea of blockading the ports of
Philadelphia and Baltimore to these freighters by a nonviolent flotilla of
canoes was proposed, and seemed to have the potential of calling public
attention, through the media, to the secretive, immoral American shipments. We
didn’t think it possible, however, that any freighters would be actually
stopped. Throughout the summer, newspapers and television newscasts focused the
public’s attention on Pakistani freighters as they were blockaded in American
ports. Surprisingly, most of the scheduled ships never arrived in port—possibly
to avert the publicity—thereby automatically making the blockade attempts
successful.
For
example, of the five Pakistani freighters scheduled for Philadelphia, only one,
the Al-Ahmadi, even attempted to come
into the port. Its docking took hours as the big ship threaded a path, with
help from a fleet of police boats, through the canoe blockade. Two days later,
the longshoremen, who had been negotiating with the blockaders for weeks,
refused to load the ship. After several sailors deserted on the third day, the
freighter departed in disgrace, leaving its 1,100-ton cargo on the dock. The
two ships scheduled for Boston also did not appear; and throughout the country
longshoremen refused to load military equipment on Pakistani freighters. In some cities they would not load any goods
for Pakistan.
Perhaps
more important than the actual ship blockade was the public pressure to oppose
American support of Pakistan which was generated by the campaign. According to
the “Pakistan Papers,” public opposition was an important consideration in the
White House’s decision to give only minor help to the Pakistani government
rather than to intervene militarily.
Long-range
goals as “generating themes”
Nonviolent campaign-movements must be based not only on the concrete
concern with medium-range goals such as voting rights, equal job opportunities,
and equal service at restaurants, but also on a concern with long-range goals
which involve broader, more abstract principles, such as “civil rights.” Every
campaign should project such an overall
theme which is both its long-range goal and an ethical principle accepted by
the general population. In this way, long-range
goals can become “generating themes” which can generate new campaigns in
several ways.
First,
when one medium-range goal is reached, the people and the public are prepared
to go on to the next one. By using “civil rights” as a generating theme in the
voting rights campaign, both blacks and the general public were prepared to
move successively from one civil rights issue to another, from buses to
restaurants to voting booths to employment offices.
Second,
the use of long-range goals as campaign themes often stimulates people in
different places to start their own campaigns on issues which affect them.
Voting campaigns based on the themes of civil rights in one area often
stimulated civil rights’ employment or housing campaigns in other areas. If the
opposition to the Indochina War had linked the long-range goals of ending U.S.
support of all dictatorships, for example, to its short-range goals of ending
the killing and correcting a mistake, both peace activists and the public might
be more prepared now for campaigns against U.S. support of oppressive regimes
in Brazil, the Philippines, South Africa, and elsewhere.
Third,
long-range goals often serve as criteria for selecting short-range goals for
potential campaigns or for deciding whether or not to accept compromise
solutions which are offered in ongoing campaigns. In seeking services at
restaurants, blacks were sometimes offered “take out” service where it had been
refused previously, but they declined this compromise because, although it was
service and it was a new breakthrough, it was inconsistent with the long-range
goal of equal rights.
Theory of social change
The
nonviolent campaign-movement’s theoretical view of society and change is
similar to that of the sociologist Max Weber: in every society, social systems
distribute most of the benefits and resources to a relatively few people (the
“positively privileged”), and distribute what remains among the majority (the
“negatively privileged”). That the system—not individual effort—distributes
resources and is responsible for gross inequalities has to be kept a secret, to
keep the negatively privileged from rebelling and to keep the positively
privileged form rejecting their advantages. The ways the system maldistributes
benefits, therefore, Weber called societal
secrets. To hide these secrets, societies develop a public set of beliefs,
values and ideologies called societal myths, which are exactly the opposite of
societal secrets. The population is socialized to believe so strongly in the
rightness of the myths, that when societal secrets are revealed, they will take
vigorous action to change the unjust condition. A key to change, therefore, is
to reveal clearly societal secrets and their corresponding myths. This is similar to Gandhi’s notion of “truth
force:” when people see the truth of an unjust situation, they will try to
change. it.
The
nonviolent “socio-drama”
Nonviolent
campaign-movements, even those which are nationwide, usually begin modestly,
often with a small, localized “socio-drama” campaign, such as in Selma. Some
characteristics of socio-dramas include the following:
Based
on a widely held principle
The
voting rights movement, for example, was based on the widely held principle
that every American adult has the right to vote.
Reveal
a specific societal secret and its accompanying myths
It
had been a secret that the social system prevented blacks from voting in the
American South. This was hidden by the
perpetuation of beliefs (societal myths) such as “blacks don’t want to vote” or
“they are not ready to vote.” One Southern voting registrar, for example,
reported on national television that in 35 years not one black had come to
register in his office. Consequently, although it was generally acknowledged
that few, if any, blacks voted in the South, there was little concern. In fact,
the myths were so effective that some Northern whites were disgruntled at
Southern blacks for not being patriotic enough to vote. The voting rights
campaign-movement, however, revealed to the public that blacks wanted to vote,
but were systematically prevented from doing so.
Offer
an alternative
Campaigns
should also offer an alternative to the present situation. Long lines of blacks
lined up at voting registration offices showed the alternative of blacks
voting. This is consistent with Gandhi’s view that the ends should be
symbolized in the means.
Reduce
issues to a picture
Socio-drama
campaigns should reduce the problem to its simplest form, a picture; ideally,
few or no words should be needed. This is accomplished by portraying the
societal secret and its accompanying myths in a real-life dramatization of the
problem, lived out by the demonstrators and other parties to the problem. This
differs from street theater, which is a play, in which actors impersonate the
real participants. Again using the voting rights example, almost daily national
television and newspaper pictures showed blacks lined up to vote—disproving the
myth that blacks were disinterested in voting. The pictures also showed police
and other whites harassing, beating, and arresting polite, conciliatory blacks
waiting in voter-registration lines—thereby revealing the secret that the
social system viciously prevented blacks from voting. Moreover, the pictures of
sadistic white violence raised questions about the civility of whites and
whether they were too uncivilized to
vote. When the message is in picture
form, the effects of media misinterpretations and opposition statements are
reduced.
Drama
and crises over time
One
important task of a campaign is to put the public spotlight on the secret and
the myths. Another is to escalate a small and localized campaign into a
nationwide movement by educating and stimulating people to action. To achieve
these tasks, the campaign’s pictures
must be dramatic, almost melodramatic, with suspense, crises, and
sensational episodes, so that they will be newsworthy as well as exciting and
interesting enough to attract new participants. Also, a news snowballing effect
should occur; the more an issue is in the news, the more newsworthy it becomes.
In time, the spotlight of the
“socio-drama” converts a previously hidden societal secret into a public issue.
The media is a crucial means to educate, stimulate, and
mobilize vast numbers of people into the movement in a relatively short time,
and, thereby, build the initial actions into a powerful nationwide
campaign-movement. Media coverage is also important to counter the opposition
which itself uses the media to hide secrets and perpetuate myths. One evening
on the three U.S. national TV news programs, for example, reaches as many
people as would be reached by a century of nightly meetings with 100 people.
The drama of the Selma voting rights campaign was watched worldwide as one
crisis followed another for several months, generating a broad upswelling of
pressure on President Johnson and the Congress. And in 1971, the drama of 22
canoes confronting the Vietnam-bound Navy ammunition ship, the U.S.S. Nitro, with 17 persons arrested
blocking its loading trains, was projected on national television where it was
given more time that the men who were on the moon at that time. Within weeks,
“people’s blockades” were spontaneously being organized across the country.
One
story a day
Groups
often make the mistake of using all their newsworthy ideas on one day, gaining
little more media coverage than would one story, but losing the media for the
following weeks. When newsworthy events are used one day at a time, however,
media coverage is greatly increased, and a demonstration can become a campaign.
Nonviolent
discipline
The least amount of violence or untoward
conduct by demonstrators usually becomes the news story of a demonstration, regardless
of how well societal secrets and myths are revealed. And too often police provocateurs,
militarists, or just people easily provoked to violence, join demonstrations as
participants. It is important, therefore, to maintain a strict nonviolent discipline.
One way to do this is to assure that, at the beginning of every demonstration,
participants agree to a statement of discipline, decided ahead of time at an
open meeting of participants, and provided as a leaflet to demonstrators. Each
demonstration should also have a cadre of specially trained, nonviolent
facilitators, and as many participants as possible should be given some
training.
Choose
an important, timely, and repeatable issue which has a “handle”
The
Pakistani freighter blockades, for example, were chosen because the war and the
possible famine it could induce were calamities. The blockades were timely
because the war was occurring that year only. Also, the freighters sailing into
American ports provided a good handle to expose the secret that the U.S. was
supporting Pakistan. And the blockades were repeatable in other ports.
Escalating
a local socio-drama into a national campaign-movement
When
activists try to organize nationwide events in their traditional manner, that
is, by first forming a coalition of sponsoring groups, one of three
disconcerting outcomes may occur. All three outcomes begin with months of
frustrating negotiations among organizational leaders, with little opportunity
for input by the rank and file demonstrators. First, negotiations may fail and
the attempt be aborted. Second, agreement may be reached on the lowest common
denominators regarding issues, speakers, and actions; for example, a throng is
called to a one-day march and rally. Third, agreement may be reached on very
little, for example, time and place, with people encouraged to do their own
thing, such as happened at the 1968 and 1972 political conventions. These
demonstrations were unable to control agents
provocateurs and militants from capturing most of the publicity with petty
violence to property and skirmishes with police. Their failure, which is
generally agreed upon, also stemmed from their brevity and predetermined
endings. Another drawback was the months wasted in preparation.
Rather than trying to organize disparate
organizations into a coalition, the campaign-movement approach encourages
groups to organize whatever local socio-dramas they believe to be creative and
important. Small groups
begin small projects in different places, joining others only when interests
coincide. The key here is not size of initial numbers, but the ability to
organize a local campaign with drama, crises, and other socio-drama elements.
Even when all these ingredients are present, however, there is no guarantee
that a project will take off into a full-fledged movement.
The
strategy of the campaign-movement approach to nationwide efforts is that if
enough independent socio-drama projects are begun, there soon will be one which
reaches a take-off point, with much drama, crisis, publicity, and interest. At
this “crunch” point, some people in other projects and regions can temporarily
join the socio-drama taking off, for experience and training, then return to
their own area to start a similar campaign. People in the original socio-drama
can also travel to other areas to help start new campaigns. This kind of strategy reduces the time
wasted trying to decide on actions, results in campaigns—not one-day
demonstrations—and increases the number of both local and national campaigns.
Also its emphasis on decentralization makes its process of development more
democratic.
Future Scenario: A Campaign-Movement For
a Nuclear Power Moratorium
The
enormous economic growth projected for the United States and Europe during the
coming decades depends on immense increased energy production by atomic fission
plants. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) plans 1,000 atomic plants for the
U.S. by 1990. Advocates of atomic energy claim that its risks have been reduced
to minimal levels—given our future energy needs. They argue further that all
energy production is harmful, but that atomic energy is the cheapest, cleanest,
and safest. A growing opposition, which includes prominent scientists, is
fearful of atomic energy, however, claiming that the peaceful uses of atomic
energy can be as devastating as its wartime use. They are concerned about
accidents, storage, and transportation of radioactive materials, radiation
levels from normal plant use, water use and pollution, sabotage, natural
disasters, vulnerability of nuclear plants as targets during war, the increased
possibility of nuclear war, climatic changes, and the many unknown effects.
Limited
space prohibits a full presentation of the arguments against atomic energy
here; however, for those not familiar with the rapidly growing literature, I
will introduce several of the key concerns.
First,
major nuclear accidents are both possible and potentially catastrophic. Even in
maximum quality programs, there is always the possibility of accidents, as the
loss of an Apollo space crew and two military nuclear submarines have
demonstrated. An accident releasing 1% of the radioactivity at the fuel
reprocessing plant in South Carolina, for example, would probably require an
evacuation of most of the U.S. East Coast, and a core meltdown in a power plant
one-fifth the size of the ones being built today would kill, according to AEC,
3,400 people (not counting long-range radioactivity deaths), would injure
45,000 people up to a radius of 45 miles, and would contaminate an area
equivalent to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Virginia. Yet
the Emergency Core Cooling System, the ultimate safety system to prevent
meltdowns, has never been tested under operating conditions and has failed all
of its simulated model tests. (6)
Moreover,
there have already been a number of accidents and failures at atomic plants.
After the 1966 accident at the Enrico Fermi plant, officials seriously
considered evacuating Detroit; the plant was then closed for four years. An AEC
report on nuclear power plants in the 1960s concluded that six of the nineteen
plants then built were shut down or dismantled, and, when operating, the plants
functioned at an average level of 54% of their designed capacity. One type of
accident which atomic plants could not withstand is a direct crash by a large
airliner, as was threatened against the Oak Ridge reactor on November 11, 1972
by skyjackers if their demands were not met. It would be possible for a nation
or political group to ransom the U.S. by threatening sabotage of nuclear plants
or trucks, or by kamikaze-type skyjacking. This could also be done by
unaffiliated mentally deranged individuals. Major earthquakes are another
potential cause of accident, against which precautions can be taken, but not
necessarily successful ones.
A
second problem is the transportation and safe storage of nuclear waste, which
must be under perpetual care for about half a million years. Over 80 million
gallons are now temporarily stored in tanks which must be replaced about every
25 years while waiting for a safe, permanent storage place. In February, 1972,
Milton Shaw, head of reactor development at the AEC, proclaimed that the Kansas
Lyons salt mines were safe for such permanent storage. In the spring, however,
the Kansas Geological Survey pointed out in Technology
Review that the salt beds were “a bit like a piece of Swiss cheese” and
that 180,000 gallons of water disappeared in a test there. Consequently, there
still in not a reliable storage place—and none seems to be in sight.
Another
problem with nuclear waste is the plutonium which is produced as a by-product.
Plutonium is a substance most lethal to humans. If, for example, only 10 pounds
were scattered evenly around the world, every person on earth probably would
soon die of cancer. Yet 45 tons of the previously scarce plutonium are expected
to be produced in the year 1980 and 170 tons in 1985. In the year 2000, the
plutonium waste will require an estimated 52,000 truck trips—a depressing
thought considering the highway accident rates. Even today, the AEC frequently
transports plutonium by commercial airplane flights (in small doses of 20 grams
per 100 flights) with considerable risk. Moreover, AEC Commissioner Larson says
that a one or two per cent loss rate (stolen, lost, or misplaced plutonium) is
normal and unavoidable. By 1980, however, this will be 900 pounds annually.
Plutonium is also dangerous because a Nagasaki-type bomb can be made relatively
easily with 11 pounds of that element. The combination of its military value to
political groups and its increasing availability through nuclear reactor
processes make the chances of a plutonium black market considerable.
Consequently, the possibility of small-scale nuclear warfare, with its hazards
of radioactive poisoning, could become commonplace.
These
are just a few of the dangers inherent in a reliance on nuclear energy. The
purpose of providing these details has not been to argue the whole case against
nuclear power, but to give several specific indicators of that concern. (7)
In
general, the opposition position is similar to that of David Lilienthal, the
first chairman of the AEC: “Once a bright hope shared by all mankind, including
myself, the vast proliferation of atomic power plants has become one of the
ugliest clouds overhanging America.” (8) They argue that both the magnitude of
the potential dangers and the chances of them being realized constitute too
large a risk. Therefore, they demand a moratorium on atomic plants until their
concerns are resolved by proven technological advances, extensive safety
research and public debate. It would be better to stop economic growth than to
chance ecological Armageddon. Besides, basic human needs and social problems
can be better solved by redistributing resources and choosing priorities more
carefully. In fact, since economic growth serves as a substitute for
redistribution (that is, as long as people believe that the pie is growing and
everyone will be better off tomorrow, they won’t complain about the failure to
redistribute), human needs might more likely be met when growth ends.
Nevertheless, atomic energy grows apace.
Some
of us who were involved in the Pakistani ship blockades are now considering
working towards a transnational campaign-movement for a moratorium on nuclear
fission energy production. The campaign would attempt to belie the societal
myths that nuclear fission is a clean and safe energy source, and expose the
secrets of its hazards. Such a campaign would be founded on the widely held
principle that life is sacred and, therefore, hundreds of millions of lives (if
not all humanity, eventually) should not be placed in jeopardy. The campaign,
however, would have difficulties in reducing many of the problems to picture
forms: radiation is invisible, many of the problems will not occur until some
future time or instantaneously through accidents, and others are unknown
because of insufficient knowledge or research.
On
the other hand, there are compensatory aspects which could contribute towards
the campaign’s success. The enormity of the problem, for example, amply
fulfills the criteria that the issue should be important, and the campaign
would be timely since the age of fission energy production is at its threshold.
Also, the hundreds of reactors either already operating or planned throughout
the industrialized world provide a good handle for direct actions with drama
and crises, and allow them to be repeated in many regions and nations.
Moreover, there already are hundreds of organization and thousands of people
actively opposing fission energy; many would support nonviolent campaigns for a
fission moratorium.
Another
problem facing the campaign which opposes atomic fission is that it implicitly
challenges some fundamental aspects of our society. The cornerstone of the
economic system of the capitalist world is private enterprise and its seeking
of maximum profits. This requires continual growth of material production and
consumption. A moratorium on atomic fission, however, will probably force a contraction
of economic growth. Consequently, the campaign would be opposed by some of the
most powerful forces in the society. In their own defense, the forces of
private enterprise will argue that economic growth and atomic fission are
necessary to end poverty in both the rich and poor nations. The campaign would
have to expose the secret that economic growth in the non-socialist world
benefits relatively few people while the numbers of poor increase and their
conditions deteriorate.
The
alternative to atomic fission and economic growth—at least until some safe
source of energy is proved safe and is available to us—might include reduced
consumption by the industrialized nations, redistribution of consumption
between the rich and poor peoples, reduction in modern technologies which
pollute and reduction in the wastage of resources. In this long-range vision of
a more egalitarian world in which the industrialized nations are de-developed,
the standards of happiness would be based more on human relationships and
individual actualization than quantities of material consumption.
A
transnational campaign-movement for a moratorium on nuclear fission could begin
by local groups in different countries independently starting socio-drama
campaigns against existing or planned atomic energy plants. Trucks could be
blocked as they transported building materials or the reactor’s core to the
site. Sometimes, demonstrations might consist of only children and babies (with
adult supervision), who symbolize those most victimized. In an effort to
prevent construction or operation of plant, people could also live in tent
cities on plant sites. For maximum drama, the squatters could march to the
site. If stopped by police at the property gates, the tent city could be
established there. During the following weeks, some people might make public
nonviolent attempts to cross the police lines to set up tents on property.
Meanwhile, teach-ins and other educational meetings could also be held at the
campsite, including public hearings at which counter-expert testimony is given.
The campaign should also be carried out in
nearby population centers, especially those downwind or downstream from the
site. Educational activities could include marches, vigils, and public
meetings. A map showing possible radiation effects which could occur at
different distances from the plant could be made into a leaflet, specifying key
population locations such as the school, hospital, or business district.
Specific tactics, however, must be tailored to each situation. The most
creative and applicable ideas, therefore, must grow out of the dynamic process
of an ongoing campaign. A socio-drama of this kind could be started with a few
people and could then grow into transnational campaign-movement.
©
William Moyer 1973
**************************************************************************
Notes
1. Although this paper focuses on the United
States, it is also applicable to other industrialized nations, which also are
over-consumers and polluters. Most have about one half the per capita levels of
the U.S. They also are on the verge of entering the atomic age of energy
production.
2. The world figures used in this paragraph were
calculated by multiplying the United States figures by 17, since the U.S. has
about one-seventeenth of the world’s population. The wealth percentages are
also those of the United States; see Herman P. Miller, Rich Man Poor Man (New York, Apollo-Crowell, 1971), chart on p.
157. The U.S. military budget for 1972 was officially about $82 billion. The
United States had 4.5 million officially unemployed workers in December, 1972;
see the U.S. Dept. of Commerce’s The Survey of Current Business, January, 1973,
Vol. 53, No. 1 p. 2. Those unofficially unemployed, that is, people who are
unemployed or underemployed, but who want to work full-time and are not counted
in the official unemployment figures, amount to about 38% of the official
unemployment rate; see Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, Joint Economic Report, March 23, 1972, p
.9. Hunger, U.S.A. (Washington, New
Community Press, 1968), p. 9, reported that there were 10 million people hungry
in the U.S. The Chinese figures are 3.5 times the U.S. figures, since they were
computed on a straight per capita basis.
3. A large amount of data supporting this thesis
has been published in recent years. See Philip Nobile and John Deedy, The Complete Ecology Fact Book (Garden
City, N.Y., Anchor, 1972) , especially Ch. VII, “Nonrenewable Mineral
Resources”; Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Population,
Resources, Environment (San Francisco, Freeman, 1970); Barry Commoner, The Closing Circle (New York, Bantam,
1972); Donella Meadows, et al., The
Limits to Growth (New York, Signet, 1972).
4. The New York Times, July 10, 1972, p. 45.
5. Based on a Chinese gross national product of
$100 billion, according to the Associated Press; see the A.P. World Almanac, 1973. The Chinese per capita GNP, therefore, is
about $133; Brazil’s is $342.
6. See Forbes, Ford, Kendell, and McKenzie,
“Nuclear Reactor Safety: An Evaluation of New Evidence,” Nuclear News, September, 1971. Published by the American Nuclear
Society.
7. Much of the information on atomic energy can
be found in the carefully researched efforts of the Environmental Coalition on
Nuclear Power (3733 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104),
especially their “Position Paper on Nuclear Power Plants,” August 30, 1971.
Their main source of information has been AEC regular bulletins.
8. As quoted by Egan O’Connor, “Radiation
Forever, Man Playing God,” Engage,
August 1970, published by the Board of Christian Social Concerns, the United
Methodist Church.
For
permission to reprint, contact the Social Movement Empowerment Project at
415-412-8640 or email doingdemocracy@igc.org
