Seymour Melman, 1917-2004

By Jonathan Michael Feldman, October 1, 2023

I proposed the following to ChatGPT: “Using the ideas of Seymour Melman try to answer the following questions. First, what were the main causes of the recent and ongoing war between Russian and Ukraine? Second, what amount and types of weapons should or should not be sent to Ukraine? Third, what is the best way to end this war?” The answers I received are reproduced below. I would say that these answers would be sufficient for perhaps a C grade (maybe lower depending on the grader). There were serious omissions and some of the answers could be deemed incorrect. My further commentary appears at the end.

ChatGPT Responds

Seymour Melman, an American professor and prominent critic of militarism and the military-industrial complex, emphasized the importance of understanding the underlying economic and structural factors that contribute to war. Applying Melman’s ideas, we can analyze the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in terms of economic and structural causes, consider the implications for weapon provision, and suggest strategies for resolving the conflict.

Main Causes of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict:

1. Economic Factors: Seymour Melman would argue that economic interests played a significant role in the conflict. Economic disparities, resource allocation, and competition for economic dominance could have triggered tensions. Economic struggles, particularly in regions like Eastern Ukraine, may have fueled grievances and aspirations for independence or alignment with Russia.
2. Militarization and Military-Industrial Complex: Melman emphasized how the military-industrial complex perpetuates conflicts by promoting a culture of war and encouraging the production and utilization of weapons. The arms race and the interests of military contractors could have influenced the escalation of the conflict and the parties’ willingness to engage in armed conflict.
3. Nationalism and Ethnic Tensions: Nationalism and ethnic tensions are often catalysts for conflicts. Melman’s perspective would highlight how identity politics, historical grievances, and territorial disputes can exacerbate tensions and lead to armed conflict.
4. Political Geopolitics and Power Dynamics: Political interests and power dynamics on both a national and international scale play a crucial role. Melman would underscore the role of geopolitical interests, alliances, and influence over strategic territories as drivers of the conflict.

Amount and Types of Weapons to Send to Ukraine:

Melman’s ideology would advocate for a cautious approach regarding the provision of weapons. Rather than escalating the conflict through a further arms race, he would propose diplomacy and de-escalation efforts. However, if any weapons are to be provided, they should be focused on enhancing the defense capabilities of Ukraine, promoting stability, and protecting civilians.

1. Defensive Weapons: Providing defensive weapons, such as anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft systems, and surveillance equipment, can aid in protecting Ukrainian civilians and minimizing casualties.
2. Humanitarian Aid: Emphasize the provision of humanitarian aid, medical supplies, and support for internally displaced persons (IDPs) to mitigate the humanitarian impact of the conflict.

Best Way to End the War:

Melman’s approach to resolving conflicts revolves around economic and social reconstruction rather than further militarization. Key strategies to end the war would include:

1. Diplomatic Negotiations and Mediation: Encourage diplomatic negotiations involving all stakeholders to address grievances and work towards a peaceful resolution, respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
2. Economic Development and Reconstruction: Focus on economic development, reconstruction, and investment in war-affected regions to address the underlying economic grievances that fueled the conflict.
3. International Cooperation and Peacebuilding: Engage the international community to support peacebuilding efforts, ensuring stability and security while addressing root causes of the conflict.
4. Demilitarization and Arms Control: Encourage demilitarization and arms control agreements to reduce tensions and promote a lasting peace, with a focus on dismantling the military-industrial complex.

Applying Melman’s insights, it is essential to prioritize diplomacy, economic reconstruction, and demilitarization to bring an end to the conflict and promote long-term stability and peace in the region.

Commentary by Jonathan Michael Feldman

Seymour Melman would only tangentially (and in a very reserved fashion) use the word “arms control.” Instead, he preferred the long-term strategy of disarmament, tied to de-militarization, rather than the short-term control of weapons systems. Disarmament requires economic conversion, which ChatGPT is totally ignorant of, but which Melman emphasized as a key strategy for ending the war system. Furthermore, Melman linked militarism to centralization and demilitarization to decentralization processes, very much in the fashion of Paul Goodman’s formulations. A review of Goodman’s work shows that he cited Melman’s own work on militarism. The ChatGPT response underspecifies the meaning of the word “reconstruction” which for Melman encompassed not only economic conversion, but also economic democracy and the extension of political democracy which could grow with a cooperative infrastructure. Melman was aligned with a liberal, Democratic Party, political infrastructure, particularly Senator George McGovern and Congressman Ted Weiss. These antiwar politicians were part of a larger system which enabled the difussion of Melman’s ideas and upon which Melman’s proposals were built. Therfore, any discussion of demilitarization requires a relevant discussion of this infrastructure.

An insightful video outlining Melman’s ideas can be found here, at this website. Melman argued that new institutions and new and expanded uses of institutions were necessary to end war and provide alternatives to it. At a conference at Oregon State University on October 14, 1988, he stated that disarmament was not an “instant event, a cataclysmic transformation, but rather as a process by which the decision power and resources of the war-making institutions are diminished in all nations participating in a disarmament process, and that the disarmament process must include establishing new forms of institutions for resolving conflicts among states. That’s why it’s of enormous importance that fresh attention be given to assessing the possible development of the United Nations in the service of an entity participating in a demilitarization process around the world.” A more detailed presentation of Melman’s key ideas appeared in a radio interview broadcast June 8, 1970.