One of the great classics of anti-militarism--originally published in 1907 and immediately banned.

Scholars have characterized the early decades of the Cold War as an era of rising militarism in the United States but most Americans continued to identify themselves as fundamentally anti-militaristic. To them, "militaristic" defined the authoritarian regimes of Germany and Japan that the nation had defeated in World War II--aggressive, power-hungry countries in which the military possessed power outside civilian authority. Much of the popular culture in the decades following World War II reflected and reinforced a more pacifist perception of America. This study explores military images in television, film, and comic books from 1945 to 1970 to understand how popular culture made it possible for a public to embrace more militaristic national security policies yet continue to perceive themselves as deeply anti-militaristic.

In the past 15 years, UK anti-militarist activists have auctioned off a tank outside an arms fair, superglued themselves to Lockheed Martin's central London offices and stopped a battleship with a canoe. They have also challenged militarism in many other everyday ways. This book explores why anti-militarists resist, considers the politics of different tactics and examines the tensions and debates within the movement. As it explores the multifaceted, imaginative and highly subversive world of anti-militarism, the book also makes two overarching arguments. First, that anti-militarists can help us to understand militarism in new and useful ways. And secondly, that the methods and ideas used by anti-militarists can be a potent force for radical political change.

A lively, first hand account of the ideas and activities of women and men in anti-war, anti-militarist and peace movements. The author looks at the tensions and divergences in and between organizations, and their potential for cohering into a powerful worldwide counter-hegemonic movement for violence reduction.

Anarchism 1914–18 is the first systematic analysis of anarchist responses to the First World War. It examines the interventionist debate between Peter Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta which split the anarchist movement in 1914 and provides a historical and conceptual analysis of debates conducted in European and American movements about class, nationalism, internationalism, militarism, pacifism and cultural resistance. Contributions discuss the justness of war, non-violence and pacifism, anti-colonialism, pro-feminist perspectives on war and the potency of myths about the war and revolution for the reframing of radical politics in the 1920s and beyond. Divisions about the war and the experience of being caught on the wrong side of the Bolshevik Revolution encouraged anarchists to reaffirm their deeply-held rejection of vanguard socialism and develop new strategies that drew on a plethora of anti-war activities.

People come together in movements to end war from many political traditions. They are socialists, communists and anarchists, people of a variety of faiths, secularists, pacifists and feminists. They share a belief that peace is possible, but have divergent views on the causes of militarism and strategies to end it. As both peace activist and social researcher, Cynthia Cockburn is well placed to ask, 'How coherent and cohesive are we?' The book presents original case studies of anti-war, anti-militarist and peace movements in Japan, South Korea, Spain, Uganda and the UK, of international networks against military conscription and the proliferation of guns, and of singular campaigns addressing aggression against Palestinians and the expansion of NATO. The stand-alone chapters make ideal course readings. Scanning the political spectrum, but always with a gender lens, the author carefully uncovers the movements' many tensions and antagonisms, looking for the source of alliance that may make of these and a multitude of other groups, organizations and networks worldwide an unstoppable movement for change. Between the nihilist view that violence is inevitable and the utopian belief in the possibility of a violence-free world is an achievable goal of violence reduction, both in times of war and in times called peace. Violence is, much more often than we think, a choice.