The basic idea

We stop producing the paper and instead focus on producing

• high-quality books and reports for use by activists and the peace movement (‘research, thinking and analysis by and for activists’), along with
• events (conferences, speaking tours, workshops, trainings…) and
• cultural interventions.

This option is inspired by (my outsiders’ perception of) some of the work carried out by London Platform over the last 20 years.

What are the main things we would do, if we chose this option?

• Research and analysis ‘by and for activists’ (perhaps on nonviolence, nuclear threats, activist history, nonviolent strategy, models of social change, foreign policy, arms conversion and so on)
• Production of materials (reports, books, pamphlets, videos and so on) based on this research and analysis
• Holding events (trainings, workshops, conferences, speaking tours and so on) based on this material
• In its more ambitious form, this would mean cultural interventions such as an annual Arkhipov award….

What are the main needs the project is serving?

To enable UK activists (and especially folk in the peace movement) to engage more deeply with the questions and issues that are central to achieving their goals (How do we win? Violence versus nonviolence. What are the obstacles to getting rid of nuclear weapons / the arms trade / war? How do our movements relate to issues of class, gender, race and so on?)

What is the hole that this project is filling? (Are we sure somebody else isn’t already doing this? How much would we be adding?)

Clearly, there’s a lot of material and thinking about these topics already out there. But, just thinking about the peace movement, I can’t think of an existing organisation with quite this focus or set of priorities (activist- and activism-focused, rather than ‘wonky’ or aimed at academics, interested in radical nonviolence).

How would we define the ‘success’ of this project?

Success would mean being able to have a significant influence on debate and thinking within UK activist circles (and/or beyond). Not 100% sure how we’d measure this, but it’s easy to think of scenarios where this was clearly true and others where it was clearly false.

Other possible criteria:

• if we were able to build up a ‘supporter base’ for the project, who could provide an alternative funding stream and set of folk engaging with the project’s output;
• if we were able to get significant coverage (for example, breaking into the mainstream media) for one or more of the project’s reports, books or cultural interventions.

What are some of the main pros and cons of adopting this option?

Some pros:

• Could be done with a variety of funding levels (from core to much more ambitious) therefore we can ‘cut the cloth to fit the body’
• Especially if PN disappears in its current form, there will be a real need for an outlet for the sort of ideas and thinking that has circulated around PN for the last 17 years

Some cons:

• We could easily lose our current supporter base (as there would no longer be a print publication). There might be a way to partially mitigate this with a ‘supporter’s newsletter’ or similar.
• To be successful, we’d need to bring in new folk from a diverse range of backgrounds and this could potentially be very disruptive and challenging, especially as the same team has been working on the current PN for so long (of course, this could also be a pro)

How does what is happening in the world, right now and over the next five years or so, support or work against the success of this project?

For:

• Assuming Labour continues with some form of austerity, we could see an uptick of activism and campaigning on a whole host of issues. This option could tap into this and help it to be more effective. Similarly, ideas around violence / nonviolence may become more contested if current strategies and approaches are perceived as failing, heightening the saliency of this project.
• Mounting an effective resistance to the far-right will almost certainly be a central concern for progressives in the coming years. Explaining, advocating for and enabling effective nonviolent resistance on this front could be a project focus.

Against:

• It’s probably more difficult to access external funding for such a project (or series of projects) than it was 12 – 13 years ago (when PN raised money to hold the Rebellious Media Conference, The World is My Country speaking tour and so on)

Which kind(s) of people is the project focused on/prioritising?

People engaged in activism and the peace movement, who want to deepen their knowledge and thinking about topics central to creating radical social change.

Which organised group(s) could we partner with to help deliver this project?

• The Rethinking Security network and its partner organisations
• Local peace groups
• Local Quaker groups
• Housmans Bookshop and the Alliance of Radical Booksellers
• Pax Christi
• Ella Baker School of Organising
• Left Book Club
• Demilitarise Education
• Forces Watch
• Declassified UK
• Peace Pledge Union
• Waging Nonviolence
• Extinction Rebellion (both UK and local groups)
• London Platform

What skills/qualities/experience will be needed to deliver this project?

• Research skills
• Writing skills
• Knowledge of activist and peace movement history
• Long-term lived experience of grassroots activism
• Knowledge of history and practice of nonviolence
• Fund-raising skills
• Ability to organise and hold workshops, speaker events, trainings, conferences
• Networking skills
• Design skills

What seems to you to be the minimum budget needed to deliver this project?

Non-supporter income of £17k / year would enable some work to happen, with maybe one of two people working (very) part-time and some other roles (admin, finance and so on) being done by volunteers. Clearly, significantly more money would need to be raised in order to do something bigger and more ambitious.