NationStates Jolt Archive

Why bother with it? Why assume that just because you want peace, means the people you are engaged in combat with want peace? This is the one thing about pacifism that always gets me. It must be mutual to work effectively.

Why bother with it? Why assume that just because you want peace, means the people you are engaged in combat with want peace? This is the one thing about pacifism that always gets me. It must be mutual to work effectively.

But when it is mutual, it works beautifully. Gandhi and the Civil Right's Movement come to mind.

Why bother with it? Why assume that just because you want peace, means the people you are engaged in combat with want peace? This is the one thing about pacifism that always gets me. It must be mutual to work effectively.

wiki:pacifism (bold mine)

Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace (pacificism); to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others.

See, there are lots of different "pacifist" ideas. Reducing pacifism to plain and simple "refusal to use violence at all" is oversimplifying a bit too much, I think.

Why bother with it? Why assume that just because you want peace, means the people you are engaged in combat with want peace? This is the one thing about pacifism that always gets me. It must be mutual to work effectively.

"Treat others the way you'd want to be treated".
Simple.

But when it is mutual, it works beautifully. Gandhi and the Civil Right's Movement come to mind.

Yes, and then look at how Gandhi left us.

Yes, and then look at how Gandhi left us.

No, the right question is to ask to look what Ghandi left us (with). Same with Martin Luther King, btw.

Why bother with it? Why assume that just because you want peace, means the people you are engaged in combat with want peace? This is the one thing about pacifism that always gets me. It must be mutual to work effectively.

Huh wot? just because you want peace, it don't mean the people who you are engaged in combat with want peace?

How can you claim to be pacifistic if you are ingaged in combat?

Did you mean to confuse me? What about the price of fish nowadays huh? How about them for lemons?

How can you claim to be pacifistic if you are ingaged in combat?

Most pacifists don't have problems with self-defense.

It doesn't have to be specifically that both sides want peace. The aggressive side could want war, but be shamed into making peace due to worldwide condemnation from using violence against nonviolent people.

'Cause Atlanticism sucks?

Because non-violent struggle often works.

From the 1905 Russian Revolution to the removal of Slobodan Milosevic, the safe return of Jewish husbands in 1940s Berlin to the self-liberation of Czechoslovakia and Poland in the late 1980s, non-violent political movements and measures have had massive impacts on political landscapes.

Because non-violent struggle often works.

From the 1905 Russian Revolution to the removal of Slobodan Milosevic, the safe return of Jewish husbands in 1940s Berlin to the self-liberation of Czechoslovakia and Poland in the late 1980s, non-violent political movements and measures have had massive impacts on political landscapes.

I know nothing about it, but considering the very first sentence in Wiki on the 1905 revolution is...

The 1905 revolution was an empire-wide struggle of violence, both anti-government and undirected, that swept through vast areas of the Russian Empire.

... eh?

hey I'm a pacifist!

Here's why I do it. I do my best to live as though the world were really the way it should be. I rebel with an ironic 'as if.'

Despite whatever costs i may incur because of my stance, I provide an example to others of our own possibilities. Suddenly my 'as if' becomes a little more 'as it is.'

"Treat others the way you'd want to be treated".
Simple.

That doesn't always work. Sometimes you can be nice to someone and they're still going to be a dick to you, no matter what.

Resolving Pacifism:

1) Find a pacifist
2) Punch said pacifist
3) Observe the result

Without the support of the masses Gahndi and MLK would both have been failures.

... eh?
It was wave after wave of peaceful demonstrations, petitions, mass strikes (at one point, around October 4th 1905, nearly 2,000,000 workers peaceably and spontaneously stopped working, from Moscow to St. Petersburg, from Kiev to Finland) that ground the Russian state almost to a halt. And although some groups, including the Bolsheviks, called for violent uprising, the strikes and protests were remarkably peaceful.

Violence was indeed enacted on the strikers and protesters, including the infamous Bloody Sunday, but the state was forced to give up massive political rights to the people due to non-violent struggle.

Because non-violent struggle often works.

From the 1905 Russian Revolution

That was a very violent revolution, if it wasn't for the countless rebellions, especially by the peasants, the Tsar would never had made concessions. Not only this, but practically nothing of real value was achieved from that revolution, the Duma was undemocratic and lacking in any important power, thanks to the Tsar.

Question to the dead protester:

"How effective was your peaceful demonstration?"

Personally, at any point where pacifism becomes 'violence only as an absolute last resort' it ceases to be pacifism since this is compatible with many formulations of the Just War Theory.

Personally, at any point where pacifism becomes 'violence only as an absolute last resort' it ceases to be pacifism

Is this not proof positive that against violent opposition that pacifism is pointless?

Is this not proof positive that against violent opposition that pacifism is pointless?
Not at all; look at the peaceful protest of workers and students in 1970s-1980s Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Through determined, hard peaceful struggle against a violent totalitarian state, whole countries in the Eastern bloc were liberated from the USSR.

Or, more recently, look at the democratic non-violent revolutions in the Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan in 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively.

Not at all; look at the peaceful protest of workers and students in 1970s-1980s Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Through determined, hard peaceful struggle against a violent totalitarian state, whole countries in the Eastern bloc were liberated from the USSR.

Or, more recently, look at the democratic non-violent revolutions in the Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan in 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively.

But pacifism is not just "revolution can be achieved through peaceful means". Pacifism is "violence is never justified, full stop".

But pacifism is not just “revolution can be achieved through peaceful means”. Pacifism is “violence is never justified, full stop”.
That depends on the pacifist you talk to. A large amount would support violence as a last resort, only to be used in self-defence. That’s why I prefer the term ‘non-violent struggle’ (taken from Gene Sharp’s excellent Waging Nonviolent Struggle) when describing peaceful protest/pacifist political activism.

But pacifism is not just "revolution can be achieved through peaceful means". Pacifism is "violence is never justified, full stop".

No it isn't. There is no one pacifism. In general though, all pacifists agree that acts of aggression are illegitimate.

That depends on the pacifist you talk to. A large amount would support violence as a last resort

Again, as I've said, I'm fairly certain that these types of people are not really pacifists, even though they like to call themselves as such.

That’s why I prefer the term ‘non-violent struggle’ (taken from Gene Sharp’s excellent Waging Nonviolent Struggle) when describing peaceful protest/pacifist political activism.

Fair enough.

Again, as I’ve said, I’m fairly certain that these types of people are not really pacifists, even though they like to call themselves as such.
I think you’re about to be attacked by a No True Scotsman.

There certainly isn’t one school of pacifist thought, and though I’m sure some pacifists would denounce anyone who used violence in self-defence, many wouldn’t.

Fighting can become very exhausting. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. Was that necessary? Not really, even though America was clearly attacked. The U.S. also invaded Iraq. Was that necessary? No.

If Bush was a pacifist, America would not be engaged in those wars.

I think you’re about to be attacked by a No True Scotsman.

There certainly isn’t one school of pacifist thought, and though I’m sure some pacifists would denounce anyone who used violence in self-defence, many wouldn’t.

Sure, but this is slightly different. The problem arises with conflicting theories, Just War Theory is supposed to be the moral alternative to Pacifism, yet in most formulations Just War Theory states that war should only be a last resort. You can't both support the Just War Theory and pacifism, if you believe that war can be a last resort, then you're really supporting the JWT since you believe in the existence of a 'Just War'.

It doesn't have to be specifically that both sides want peace. The aggressive side could want war, but be shamed into making peace due to worldwide condemnation from using violence against nonviolent people.

Or, in the case of otherwise worldwide pacifism, the aggressor would just conquer the whole world, and institute a plausible world peace system.

Si vis pacem para bellum. Simple.

The problem arises with conflicting theories, Just War Theory is supposed to be the moral alternative to Pacifism, yet in most formulations Just War Theory states that war should only be a last resort. You can’t both support the Just War Theory and pacifism, if you believe that war can be a last resort, then you’re really supporting the JWT since you believe in the existence of a ‘Just War’.
Woah there, cowboy!

There’s a massive difference between the self-defence of an individual and the self-defence (if one can even call it that) of a nation. I wasn’t arguing that many pacifists are supporters of JWT, merley that many pacifists would concede that if the only way to prevent your death is to bop your attacker on the head, then that bopping is ‘allowed’.

Extrapolating that up to the level of nations isn’t acceptable to most, if not all, pacifists, because the relations are much more complicated than ‘him vs. me’. As much as some people would like, we aren't talking about individual actors here.

But when it is mutual, it works beautifully. Gandhi and the Civil Right's Movement come to mind.

You're right, Gandhi, and King Jr. were respected heroes of the community, accepted by everyone who lived out the full length of their natural lives.

Right? Isn't that how it happened? Or am I wrong, and their pacifism didn't save them? Wouldn't the same happen on a larger scale? If an entire community becomes pacifist is it unreasonable to assume that someone not so pacifist would leave them alone?

Pacifism is foolish, because humans are reckless, and violent people. Sure, world peace sounds great, and terrific, but realistically, it is all but impossible.

Woah there, cowboy!

There’s a massive difference between the self-defence of an individual and the self-defence (if one can even call it that) of a nation. I wasn’t arguing that many pacifists are supporters of JWT, merley that many pacifists would concede that if the only way to prevent your death is to bop your attacker on the head, then that bopping is ‘allowed’.

Extrapolating that up to the level of nations isn’t acceptable to most, if not all, pacifists, because the relations are much more complicated than ‘him vs. me’. As much as some people would like, we aren't talking about individual actors here.

Well, many people who identify themselves as pacifists actually do believe that war is justifiable as a last resort, but I agree that's not very pacifist like.

You’re right, Gandhi, and King Jr. were respected heroes of the community, accepted by everyone who lived out the full length of their natural lives.

Right? Isn’t that how it happened? Or am I wrong, and their pacifism didn’t save them?
I don’t recall anyone saying that pacifism was safe. Or that non-violent struggle doesn’t have its dangers. Indeed, if you are aiming for large-scale political change, as Ghandi and MLK were, then if the status quo isn’t threatening you, then you’re probably not kicking up enough of a fuss.

Wouldn’t the same happen on a larger scale? If an entire community becomes pacifist is it unreasonable to assume that someone not so pacifist would leave them alone?
You seem to be misunderstanding pacifism; again, this is why I prefer the term ‘non-violent struggle’. For a start, you seem to be suggesting that pacifism is the lack of opposition to violence or argument, that it is just laying down and refusing to fight. This is far from the case. Indeed, non-violent struggle is the complete opposite of the above; it is the determined, non-violent, opposition to coercion, tyranny and oppression. It makes use of the strike, the sit-in, peaceful protest, civil disobedience, symbolic gestures, organisation, etc.

And in the modern world, it is becoming more and more effective.

Sure, but this is slightly different. The problem arises with conflicting theories, Just War Theory is supposed to be the moral alternative to Pacifism, yet in most formulations Just War Theory states that war should only be a last resort. You can't both support the Just War Theory and pacifism, if you believe that war can be a last resort, then you're really supporting the JWT since you believe in the existence of a 'Just War'.

But Just War Theory justifies war in cases that go beyond mere self-defense. According to JWT, war can be just if it seeks to correct a moral woe.

Most pacifists will say that war is only justifiable in self-defense, and nothing more than that. The moment the danger is over with, these pacifists say that the war must end. Some will go further and say that even self-defense is not justified, but all forms of pacifism agree that aggression is not justified.

But Just War Theory justifies war in cases that go beyond mere self-defense. According to JWT, war can be just if it seeks to correct a moral woe.

Most pacifists will say that war is only justifiable in self-defense, and nothing more than that. The moment the danger is over with, these pacifists say that the war must end. Some will go further and say that even self-defense is not justified, but all forms of pacifism agree that aggression is not justified.

Agreed. My personal ideal is: I won't fight in self defense. I will step in if you're attacking my little sister, little kids in general, defenceless people, etc. And that's only if needed.

I'm happy with non-violence as a personal choice, but I'm not going to let you crush some little kid without trying to stop you.

Of course, I don't always live up to this, but that's where I'd like to be.

Question to the dead protester:

"How effective was your peaceful demonstration?"

"Well, it created a martyr, rallying tens of thousands who so far were undecided on the issue..."

You're right, Gandhi, and King Jr. were respected heroes of the community, accepted by everyone who lived out the full length of their natural lives.

Right? Isn't that how it happened? Or am I wrong, and their pacifism didn't save them? Wouldn't the same happen on a larger scale? If an entire community becomes pacifist is it unreasonable to assume that someone not so pacifist would leave them alone?

Pacifism is foolish, because humans are reckless, and violent people. Sure, world peace sounds great, and terrific, but realistically, it is all but impossible.

So you're saying India is still under British rule, and blacks still have to sit in the back of the busses in the US?

You're right, Gandhi, and King Jr. were respected heroes of the community, accepted by everyone who lived out the full length of their natural lives.

Right? Isn't that how it happened? Or am I wrong, and their pacifism didn't save them? Wouldn't the same happen on a larger scale? If an entire community becomes pacifist is it unreasonable to assume that someone not so pacifist would leave them alone?

Pacifism is foolish, because humans are reckless, and violent people. Sure, world peace sounds great, and terrific, but realistically, it is all but impossible.

Meh we all die, but these people did bring about change, foolish or not it can, and has, and does work.

There are all sorts, and what you feel is foolish others do not, so *shrug* why get uptight about it.

Resolving Pacifism:

1) Find a pacifist
2) Punch said pacifist
3) Observe the result

Without the support of the masses Gahndi and MLK would both have been failures.

Most effective response:
1) Refuse to retaliate
2) Report you to the police
3) Laugh at you because you now have a criminal record

Sorry, if one doesn't wish to fight, there are many other options. For another idea:
1) Refuse to retaliate
2) Tell all one's mates about you
3) Watch as you find yourself shunned and ignored by everybody

As I said, physical violence is in no way needed.

Most effective response:
1) Refuse to retaliate
2) Report you to the police
3) Laugh at you because you now have a criminal record

Sorry, if one doesn't wish to fight, there are many other options. For another idea:
1) Refuse to retaliate
2) Tell all one's mates about you
3) Watch as you find yourself shunned and ignored by everybody

As I said, physical violence is in no way needed.

Police aren't pacifists :rolleyes:

how does one bother to be pacifist? I mean surely dragging my arse out of bed on a frigging Sunday at some inhuman time to run around hitting things is hard work

I'm a simple man who prefers things like a good sit-in or that hunger strike thing where you go on strike from hunger and gorge yourself to death

So you're saying India is still under British rule, and blacks still have to sit in the back of the busses in the US?

*resists urges* :p

Police aren't pacifists :rolleyes:

yeah they are sleeping gas FTW! having the police tell you your a naughty boy also helps

Police aren't pacifists :rolleyes:

Just because I won't use violence doesn't mean that I'm going to let you get away with doing whatever you damn well like. If it's illegal, for instance, the law will have a word with you.

Just because I won't use violence doesn't mean that I'm going to let you get away with doing whatever you damn well like. If it's illegal, for instance, the law will have a word with you.

That word will sometimes by necessity progress beyond words.

I respect that most officers will make every effort to solve a problem or effect an arrest without violence, but it is sometimes taken out of their hands.

As a result, they must then project force, sometimes violent and potentially fatal, to protect themselves and others.

So, I repsect your right to be pacifist, but by calling the police, you're simply delegating the potential need for violence to others. I think thats wise, and I would do the same, but it is still acknowledging that violence may be necessary.

That word will sometimes by necessity progress beyond words.

I respect that most officers will make every effort to solve a problem or effect an arrest without violence, but it is sometimes taken out of their hands.

As a result, they must then project force, sometimes violent and potentially fatal, to protect themselves and others.

So, I repsect your right to be pacifist, but by calling the police, you're simply delegating the potential need for violence to others. I think thats wise, and I would do the same, but it is still acknowledging that violence may be necessary.

Yes, very true. Which is why I also proposed at least one method of community enforcement, that wouldn't require such a thing. In general, I far prefer avoiding involving the law in such an issue. The main reason I mentioned it was as the absolute simplest problem with such a plan, the law would probably end up involved.

Now, I will also say that I'm not a pacifist. I aspire to it, but I in no way consider myself to be good enough at it to claim that. I do, however, feel that non violent methods are generally the best way of doing things.

It's actually quite interesting to consider pacifism as the belief that 'There are no ends noble enough that violence is a justified means to reach them.' That's an idea I can get behind. It also has interesting implications for those who feel that the means are linked with the ends. Several historical anarchists have argued that one cannot say the end justifies the means, because the means used will affect the end reached. The specific case they're generally dealing with is those who argue that seizing the power of the state is justified to bring in socialism, but it has interesting implications, especially for those who believe that violence is justified to halt violence. This is rambling off topic a bit, but I suppose it's coherent enough and relevant enough to post.

Could I just mention here that I'm quite happy to have a useful discussion with people who make interesting points. Just say something useless, and I won't bother. That is considered a hit for certain persons.