Keir Starmer’s commitment to militarism is unshakable. The Labor Party has shown, in particular by their increase in military spending, militarist rhetoric and commitment to militarist institutions, such as the arms industry, that they are ideologically “ Thrall to War … influenced by and taken in a military way ” (Eastwood 2018: 46). The starmer of militarism to economic growth is not new; Military intervention and the preparation of war in Western countries have long been motivated by the desire to defend, develop and widen liberal economies, such as the Empire, markets and trade (for example, see Edgerton 1991; 2008; Mabee 2016). However, the suggestion that larger military expenditure will create jobs, will help small businesses and promote regional equality, will false that a large part of the advantage will be for the most important craft businesses and the weakness of the link between investments in militarism and the creation of jobs (since it is a high -tech and minimum work industry). It also obscures the much stronger advantages of investment in fields such as green energy and well-being, both of which cut the government.
Militarist labor policy and rhetoric also poses a serious moral problem for global policy. The secular equation of more military spending with greater security reflects the hegemonic myth according to which war and violence are necessary to defend the nation state (or, in fact, allied nation states) against external threats. The justification of war as a means of achieving specific desirable ends, including national survival and economic security, means that war and violence have priority as solutions to societal problems, leading to continuous preparations for the possibility of war. This obscures the ways in which militarism produces and incorporates vulnerability, insecurity, marginalization and hierarchy in countries targeted by British military and British weapons, as well as in the United Kingdom and in the countries it arms. War, and the preparations for war, cannot be morally justified in terms of singular act with regard to means and ends (for example, the name of securing the nation state and its economy), because of their devastating consequences far beyond the instrumental calculations which make war possible (Hutchings 2018). The fact that the life of marginalized people, namely women and sexual minorities, is always destabilized long before, during and after “wartime” officially defines, is an important illustration. Seeing war and militarism as morally problematic conditions, rather than acts, is essential to recognize their economic, political, social, cultural and environmental consequences. Despite the hegemony of the myth of militarism, my research, which focuses on exploring the functioning of militarism, indicates that dispersed individuals are willing to question and reject militarist power relations. By reflecting on this, I maintain that the hegemony of militarism can (and must) be resisted.
My doctoral research reveals that many people support but question, resist and ignore the dominant speeches of online militarism and in their daily spaces. The dispersed nature of critical voices seems to restrict a more impactful resistance (that an organized movement or a collective phenomenon could own) and means that these voices are easily demonized, which are both central to maintain militarist culture mainly because there is no alternative. However, with people wishing to question and even reject militarism, encouraging more impactful anti-militarist resistance is not impractical. The dispersed resistance can inspire others, gain recognition, evolve into more collective actions and lead change through the construction and continuous reconstruction of counter-narratives. In this sense, “what looks like” individual “resistance could become a collective phenomenon when carried out in patterns” (Lilja, Vinthagen and Wiksell 2022: 41-2). Although the speeches of militarists often force the daily resistance, the fact that many people disrupt these speeches suggest that the promotion of a more daring anti -militarist resistance – which cannot be easily rejected or described as extreme – is not unexploited. Like other ideologies, militarism is not fixed and depends on new generations promising continuous support. The change in resistance dispersed against militarism in more collective and active forms would align with the growing resistance to power structures and the promotion of progressive values, as evidenced by the growing critical perspectives among the young generations. Social change must be understood by examining the relationships between the different forms of resistance and the models of their repetition, including the way in which organized resistance can stimulate more radical public discourse, and vice versa. To this end, a robust and collective collective policy requires difficult conversations and resistance at several levels. The opposition must include recognition that war and militarism are conditions, the interrogation of national identity training (for example, war memories and myths), the refusal to support the troops and, ultimately, the abolition of the army. More impactful resistance also requires resistance through several modes of action, including more direct forms and daily pressures and activism.
Given that instrumental arguments for military spending retain the culture of militarism as a potentially positive force, resistance must be centered on difficult war as a condition rather than an individual act. Since national identity training is at the heart of normalization and legitimization of war and martial violence, resistance to militarism requires the disruption of these cultural constructions. The just myth of war is part of the “mythologized history” of Great Britain, which supervises special past wars as just and thus “convinces that the current and future wars can also be” (Fiala 2008: 15). The commitment to war as sometimes just, which is most obvious in the construction of the Second World War as a “good war” in public and political discourse, is at the heart of the legitimization of additional violence because it justifies war in terms of apparent desirable ends. This obscures that war is a condition that intrinsically produces and intrinsically intrinsically, insecurity and exclusion, far beyond the spatial and temporal limits of “war time”. The construction of a more daring policy of resistance against war and violence is therefore based on the deconstruction of the cultural memory of past wars as noble and just. This requires difficult conversations, in particular the questioning of emotional responses and attachments to British national identity and memories of war, finally recognizing the violent history of Great Britain and decomposing illusions that war ensures the security of people. He includes uncomfortable and potentially hurtful deconstruction of the myth of the Second World War as honorable, confronted and opposing his Romantic in public life. Commemoration practices must move away from the stories of sacrifice, heroism, justice and freedom and towards an explicit recognition of horrors, violence, hierarchies and long -term consequences of war.
The rejection of martial violence will also require that we resolve societal pressures to support the British soldiers. This is due to the central role which calls for “supporting the troops” in the minimization of the criticism of war and violence (Millar 2022). One way for this could be carried out while guaranteeing the fair treatment of military personnel, which often needs material support because of their military service, through the renation of the care of veterans, as part of a strong social protection system, rather than the responsibility of the charity sector (Christoyannopoulos 2023). Indeed, framing military personnel as a social cause exerts pressure on civil society to demonstrate that they care, which undermines the deeper critical reflection of political decisions which lead to their suffering. Discursively, refusing to support the troops must focus on re-politically of martial violence by emphasizing the votes of its victims rather than the treatment of British military personnel.
In the end, the rejection of militarism also requires the abolition of the military. The abolition is massively framed as out of the question in public and political discourse because military violence is considered inevitable and sometimes desirable. This means that resistance to war and violence will always be limited because an inability to engage even in the question of abolition means that we will probably continue to turn to militarist approaches to solve our problems. Although there are clear obstacles to promote stronger anti-militarist resistance, success at a level will increase the chances of success to others. More impactful resistance requires action through several channels, ranging from direct forms to daily conversations, pressures and activism. For example, encouraging a greater number of people to recognize militarism as harmful to British society would considerably increase the attraction of abolition. At the same time, the strengthening of dispersed resistance – such as opinions shared online and in public spaces – war and violence more and more would probably motivate more people to engage in organized forms of resistance. This could create a positive cycle of resistance, trigger more conversations, promote a more radical public discourse and leading to greater participation in collective action. Resistance to militarism is both necessary and entirely possible, based on the convergence of various types and resistance levels, as well as their sustained repetition over time.
Read more in -depth on international relations
