As the title above implies, there is an unresolved tension for anti-authoritarians who want to form political organisations. While there is an evident contradiction, Sixties' activists were well aware of this fact and had several ingenious solutions for it. By focusing on the issue of war and nuclear annihilation, early Sixties’
peace movements were in many cases the first examples of a radical SMO with all of the above six themes of the radical frame in place. Not only did the focus encourage an overtly global perspective, but it also introduced graphic details of suffering and loss. While these themes were abstract in the beginning, the war in Vietnam (and wars elsewhere in the Third World) made them much more tangible. Vietnam was instrumental in changing the discursive approach towards a more emotional form of rhetoric and visual communication: an increasing focus on Cold War power politics appeared and the radical press came into contact with a more concrete structure that needed altering. While perhaps an unrealistically large objective for small and relatively peripheral social movements to have any significant impact on, the issue was nevertheless more explicitly political and tangible than existing debates about social mores and the prevailing conservatism of Nordic societies. While peace activism was in many ways still tied to a firm belief in exact concepts, unbiased science, and reformism, debates about the issue show how many of the themes that would feature in later on in the process of radicalisation already existed before the Vietnam War.
Swedish peace protests were particularly focused on the issue of nuclear weapons because of Sweden’s own nuclear arms project that was publicly supported by a group of high-ranking army officials and conservative politicians.
These anti-nuclear organisations, namely the AMSA (Aktionsgruppen mot svensk atombomb, founded in 1958) and its successor the KMA (Kampanjen mot atomvapen, founded in 1961), were careful not to associate themselves with the political Left, and especially not the Communists,268 because they wanted to have as broad a base of popular support as possible. Too direct a political association would have compromised their legitimacy, especially since the Communists had barely any support in Sweden – they would also have been seen as stooges of the Soviets, and therefore as a national threat. So instead of political association, the Swedish peace movements took their example from movements elsewhere: for instance, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in Britain – with its explicit focus on non-partisan politics – and the Easter Marches Movement in West Germany.269 Rather than making political associations, generational ones were made instead: the youthfulness of the peace movement leaders was underlined as a counterpoint to the indifference of older established political leaders, and this tendency would repeat itself in many of the other themes discussed in the early 1960s radical press. This “youth frame”, as Holly Scott has called it, was a
268 Salomon 1996, 88; Etzemüller 2005, 70-75; Östberg 2002, 41-43.
269 Östberg 2002, 41-42.
tempting alternative as it could explain differences in political opinions using natural, non-political factors.270 The youth frame also fitted well with the peace movement’s different horizon of expectations, and their need for uncompromising and direct action faced with the looming threat of nuclear war.271 However, there were still traditional leftists groups like Clarté that also emphasised pacifism in their program and consequently they distanced themselves from more aggressive readings of oppositional politics.272
Directly influenced by the CND and Bertrand Russell’s ‘Committee of 100’
in Britain, Finland’s own Sadankomitea (also meaning ‘Committee of 100’) was established in 1963, but was somewhat more abstract in its approach. Because of the Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance with the USSR (which meant foreign policy could not be properly debated), the Committee focused instead on an abstract global level.273 A distaste for moralist, individualistic and overtly political definitions of peace distanced the Committee from more traditional Christian and Socialist peace organisations. Sadankomitea emphasised scientific solutions and pushed for controlled disarmament, preferring to avoid the overtly religious rhetoric of certain jingoistic Christian discourses.274 With the emergence of nuclear weapons, historical examples of the
‘just war’ seemed more redundant then ever: as Klaus Mäkelä, one of the leading radical sociologists in Finland, and member of the Committee argued, the armed defence of democracy was not an option when nuclear weapons were involved.275 Maintaining a neutral political position was important to the Committee too: the rational perspective was to remain critical of the Cold War and therefore of both superpowers.276 These positions show just how deeply entangled the Committee was in the cultural radicalist debate. Many key agents operated in both the cultural radicalist and pacifist spheres, and in so doing acted as a conduit for transferring and transforming discourses from one topic to the next. Jörn Donner, one of the most outspoken social critics in the cultural radicalist sphere, for instance, used the concepts of pacifism and cultural radicalism interchangeably.277 Fundamental faith in the progressive capabilities of public discourse connected cultural radicals and peace activists in both Nordic contexts.278 Peace organisations were also often the breeding ground for activists
270 Scott 2016; For a discursive analysis on the usage of the generational frame in the Finnish context, see Saksholm 2015.
271 Östberg 2002, 43.
272 Salomon 1996, 78-79.
273 Niitelmä 3/1960, Ylioppilasmaailman henkiset virtaukset”; Turun Ylioppilaslehti 16/1962, Erkki Lod, ”Isänmaallisuus”; Turun Ylioppilaslehti 17/1962, Erkki Lod, ”Lukujen vertailua”; Ylioppilaslehti 24/64, Jaakko Blomberg, ”Sotilaat ja poliitikot”.
274 Ylioppilaslehti 13/62, Esko Ervasti ja Hannu Taanila, “Johdatusta isänmaallisten kielen teoriaan II.
Isänmaallisuudesta”; Hallman 1986, 20; Tuominen 1991, 139; Kolbe 1996a, 52, 87-88.
275 Ylioppilaslehti, 34/62, Klaus Mäkelä, “Realistit, idealistit ja tutkijat”.
276 Alapuro 1997, 124.
277 Ylioppilaslehti 13/1961, Jörn Donner, “Pasifistit”.
278 Turun ylioppilaslehti 9/65, Seppo Saherma, ”Kaikkien maiden armeijat”; Turun ylioppilaslehti 7/63, Hannu Taanila, ”Hemanuksen pamfletti”; Östberg 2002, 53.
that would end up working in other radical SMOs. Ilkka Taipale, for example, started his activism in the Finnish ‘Committee of 100’, and ended up being one of the founding members of the ‘November Movement’ (Marraskuun liike)279 which focused on social issues, while Sköld Peter Matthis moved from Sweden’s peace organisations to actually becoming a key figure in the pro-FNL movement.280
Referring to the social sciences was another shared trait in pacifist and cultural radicalist debates. ‘Peace research’, in many ways pioneered by the Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, was an obvious point of reference here. In a broader sense, sociology was an understandably important influence, and fitted in well with the general tendency of appealing to academic traditions and arguments in both the student activist and New Left spheres.281 Sociology not only legitimised arguments, but also distinguished the new peace movements from Communist or Christian peace organisations. As Göran von Bonsdorff, a sociologist and a peace researcher at the University of Helsinki argued, research was a way of rationalising emotional discussions – scholars could remove any sensitive ideological elements from the discussion.282 The generalisable applicability of research was another important feature, particularly in terms of investigating the global impact of nuclear weapons.283 For Klaus Mäkelä, peace research had a very practical application: finding new methods to prevent wars.284 In this respect, peace research was infused with the positivism of cultural radicalism and a firm belief in the state as a positive vehicle for promoting political change.
When it came to matters of peace activism, the relationship between student activists and the New Left was rarely a black and white affair: arguments associating peace activism with Communism were common in the mainstream media, and the Committee of 100 and AMSA activists were keen to downplay them. Yet the Finnish New Left also had many principles (and some public channels) in common with Committee of 100 activists;285 there were even some New Leftists who were also emphasising the need for non-partisan solutions in the new context of imminent nuclear war. Jarno Pennanen, the editor of Tilanne and one of the central spokespersons for humane socialism, was one of the most outspoken among them.286 Yet for others, partisan divisions were still important;
peace was seen as one of the areas where the compromises of social democracy
279 The November Movement was (by no accident) founded exactly 50 years after the October Revolution on 7th November, 1967 (7 November was 25 October according to the Old Style calendar in Russia).
280 Salomon 1996, 38, 90.
281 Hallman 1986, 26; Tuominen 1991, 147; Kolbe 1996a, 84-85.
282 Jyväskylän ylioppilaslehti 27/63, Kalevi Kivistö, ”Konfliktien- ja rauhantutkimuksesta”.
283 Ylioppilaslehti 2/1962, Pekka J. Korvenheimo, “Kansainvälinen politiikka ja
maailmanrauha”; Ylioppilaslehti 4/64, Jaakko Blomberg, ”Realistin aseidenriisunta”.
284 Ylioppilaslehti, 34/62, Klaus Mäkelä, “Realistit, idealistit ja tutkijat”.
285 Kolbe 1996a, 50-52.
286 Tilanne 2/66, Jarno Pennanen, “Meidän on”, 105-106.
became painfully visible,287 and the bourgeois background of many Committee activists stuck in the throat of many in the New Left.288 Vietnam activism was a pressing theme that displaced liberal, individual approaches with a more politically conscious and collectivist Leftism.289 But before going into greater detail about Vietnam, let us first take a look at how the Nordic welfare state featured in radicalist arguments.
287 Tilanne 3/63, Raimo Malm, “Rauhanliikkeen näköalat”, 120-122.
288 Aikalainen 6/66, Ahti Susiluoto, “Onko Sadankomitea sodomia-komitea”, 9-24.
289 Östberg 2002, 62.