Anarcho-Pacifism

[Howard509]

CONVERGENCE OF PACIFISM AND ANARCHISM

The development of Christian Anarchism presaged the increasing convergence (but not complete merging) of pacifism and anarchism in the 20th century. The outcome is the school of thought and action (one of its tenets is developing thought through action) known as 'pacifist anarchism', 'anarcho-pacifism' and 'nonviolent anarchism'. Experience of two world wars encouraged the convergence. But, undoubtedly, the most important single event to do so (although the response of both pacifists and anarchists to it was curiously delayed) was the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. Ending as it did five years of 'total war', it symbolised dramatically the nature of the modern Moloch that man has erected in the shape of the state. In the campaign against nuclear weapons in the 1950s and early 1960s, more particularly in the radical wings of it, such as the Committee of 100 in Britain, pacifists and anarchists educated each other.

The single most important intellectual influence helping to shape anarcho-pacifism is that of M K Gandhi (1869-1948), who began his career as a disciple of Tolstoy. Tolstoy's great weapon for undermining (rather than overthrowing) the state was the refusal by individuals to cooperate with it and obey its immoral demands - the weapons defended by Henry David Thoreau in his classic essay on 'Civil Disobedience' (1849), (33) and the one used by pacifist COs. But Gandhi, in the course of the whole Indian movement for national liberation, showed that there is a whole range of weapons, collective as well as individual, in the armoury of those who are prepared to resist oppressive structures. In doing so he shifted the emphasis from passive non-resistance to active non-violent resistance. He also emphasised the theory of power underlying their use: the theory of 'voluntary servitude', originally outlined by Etienne de la Boetie in 1548, namely that structures of power, even when they seem to rely on physical force, depend in the last analysis on the co-operation, however reluctant, of those over whom power is exercised. Further, Gandhi clarified the relationship between means and ends, particularly with reference to the use of violence. Means, he insisted, must not merely be consistent with ends; this principle, though preferable to 'the end justifies the means', is based on a misleading dichotomy. Means are ends, never merely instrumental but also always expressive of values; means are end-creating or ends-in-the making. One implication of this view is that we can, in a sense, forget what are called 'ends' and focus on 'means', confident in the knowledge that if the 'means' are pure, then the desired 'ends' will follow. Another is that our conceptions of desirable futures, our 'utopias', are only mental constructs for guiding our actions here and now. We realise our 'utopias', insofar as they are realisable at all, by acting now as if 'utopia' had already arrived. Lastly, Gandhi developed the concept of nonviolent revolution, to be seen not as a programme for the seizure of power, but as a programme for transforming relationships. The concept sits neatly with the observation of the German anarchist, Gustav Landauer (1870-1919): 'The state is a condition, a certain relationship between beings, a mode of behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently.'

Gandhi's ideas were popularised in the West in books such as Richard Gregg's The Power of Nonviolence (1935), (34) and Bart de Ligt's The Conquest of Violence (1937). (35) The latter is particularly important for anarchists since, as one himself, de Ligt specifically addressed those who lust for revolution. 'The more violence, the less revolution', he declared. He also linked Gandhian principled nonviolence with the pragmatic nonviolent direct action of the syndicalists. (The General Strike is an expression of total nonco-operation by workers, though it should be added that most syndicalists believed that the revolution should be defended by armed workers.)

In the 1950s and 1960s anarcho-pacifism began to gel, tough-minded anarchists adding to the mixture their critique of the state, and tender-minded pacifists their critique of violence. Its first practical manifestation was at the level of method: nonviolent direct action, principled and pragmatic, was used widely in both the Civil Rights movement in the USA and the campaign against nuclear weapons in Britain and elsewhere. These two movements provided part of the matrix for the emerging New Left. It soon became clear that what was 'new' about the New Left - hardly surprising since it was triggered by disillusionment among socialists with both Marxian Communism (Stalinist variety) and Social Democracy - was in large part a rediscovery and reassertion of libertarian socialism that had been submerged for over a generation. In its first decade several themes, theories, actions, all distinctly libertarian, began to come to the fore and were given intellectual expression by the American anarcho-pacifist, Paul Goodman (1911-72) (36): anti-militarism, the rediscovery of community, community action, radical decentralism, participatory democracy, the organisation of the poor and oppressed inter-racially, and the building of counter-culture and counter-institutions (such as new co-ops, collectives and communes). For a brief period it looked, at least to anarcho-pacifists, as though these might be woven into a grand strategy for nonviolent revolution. Then, from 1967 , for reasons explored by Nigel Young (37) the movement (really 'a movement of movements') experienced a failure of nerve. The prospect (or dream) vanished, and by the early 1970s the New Left had disintegrated, the end being marked by, among other things, the bombings carried out by the New Left's 'dark angels', the Weathermen and the Angry Brigade.

The collapse of the New Left coincided with the exhaustion of the less well-publicised Sarvodaya (welfare of all) movement for nonviolent revolution in India, led by Vinoba Bhave and Jayaprakash Narayan (1902-1979), which had sought through voluntary villagisation of land to realise Gandhi's dream of an India of village republics. The implication of Sarvodaya for the subject of this book is brought out by the statement of Jayaprakash Narayan: 'In a Sarvodaya world society the present nation states have no place.' (38) In the India case the disintegration was disguised by the movement's venture, sparked off by students in Bihar, into confrontation politics - a venture which led to the declaration of a state of emergency in 1975-77 and the period of unstable politics that has followed. (39)

It would be premature, however, to write off anarcho-pacifism. In India, Gandhi remains a potent symbol and source of inspiration. And in the West, since the demise of the New left, various groups, such as War Resisters' International, The Peace News constituency in Britain, and the Philadelphia Life Center in the USA, have sought to give clearer definition to the central concept of anarcho-pacifism: nonviolent revolution. (40) At the same time, the counter-cultural critique of modern industrial society has been extended, notably by Theodore Roszak, (41) and links established between anarcho-pacifism and the ecological and Women's Liberation movements. The production and use of nuclear energy, an issue being pressed by anarcho-pacifists, among others, may - just possibly - become in the 1980s the catalyst for a mass nonviolent movement, comparable to the movement against nuclear weapons twenty or so years ago.

Meanwhile, the nation state still stands as 'the norm of modern political organisation'. It is not likely to be abolished, in the way Bakunin envisaged. But it may be subverted or transcended. There are forces at work in the world - multi-nationals and 'sub-nationalisms', for example - which are finding it necessary to use both larger and smaller frames of reference than the nation state provides. Anarcho-pacifism is only one of these forces and not, some may think, the most important. But its continued opposition to war and preparations for war, its clear transnational orientation and appeal, and its insistence on the importance of rediscovering community at all levels from the local to the global - the latter encapsulated in the counter-culture's vision of humankind coming home to their 'global village' - make it a potentially significant source of both subversion and transcendence. These nonviolent revolutionaries do not think that the nation state is 'the foundation of world order': they think it is the active promoter of disorder, and fear that its various rival agents will one day start throwing nuclear bombs at each other and destroy the only civilisation we have. The nation state is not 'the chief definer' of their 'identity' - it does not 'permeate' their 'outlook'; and even the atheists among them find it blasphemous to regard it as 'the main object of individual loyalties'. They may prattle on about love and peace, but they are modern Anabaptists and, like their heretical forebears, they can recognise an 'abomination' when they see it.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/e_publications/dd-trad8.html



Anarcho-pacifism has a long history, beginning at least with Leo Tolstoy. I can understand why it makes no sense to an orthodox Marxist, whose system depends on violence, but it should be respected as part of the greater anarchist movement. I believe in workers' struggle, but through peaceful means like the mass strike.

[h0m0revolutionary]

You tihnk the mass strike will be peaceful?

that bosses and repressive state apparatus like the army and police will just allow the mass strike to occur?

You're deluded and pacifism is as alien to the anarchist tradition as it is the marxist tradition, don't try and cuddle up to us, you represent an insignificant minority of anarchist thought. We must prepare for a violent revolution, because if we go along unprepared because people like you offering completely abstract pacifist we'll pay will our lives and our revoluton!

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

I never understood anarcho-pacifism. Is there anything short I can read which explains why people think pacifism follows from anarchist political philosophy?

As I see it the blanket rejection of all violence puts the violence of the opressed on par with the violence of their opressors and shows an extreme lack of class consciousness. Are anarcho-pacifists generally absolute pacifists for tactical or ethical reasons? If the former, then they have a very different analysis of existing society to that of the mainstream anarchist movement. If the latter then their basic assumptions on how to do political philosophy are very different from those of mainstream anarchism. Extrapolating politics from absolutist ethics is diametrically opposed to the spirit of anarchism


The single most important intellectual influence helping to shape anarcho-pacifism is that of M K GandhiNot a good sign.

[9]

Pacifism is counterrevolutionary. To refuse in absolute terms all forms of violence regardless of cause and context is to declare yourself a foot-soldier for the cause of capitalism and exploitation. An "anarcho-pacifist" in Nazi Germany would not only be complicit in the crimes of the Nazis, but would also be the most vile form of hypocrite on the face of the planet. How pretentious, how sanctimonious must one be to assert that his/her individual moralistic devotion to "non-violence" takes precedence over the lives of innocent people and the emancipation of the working class.. while simultaneously spewing rhetoric which pretends to advocate the very emancipation which he/she is actively working to undermine!
It is easy now, in a time when there is not violent struggle (and very little non-violent struggle as well) to pretend that a revolution can be won by holding hands and lighting candles. It is a comforting fantasy - an illusion. An illusion which can only excusably maintain itself when thoroughly removed from any conception of broader history - from the realities of capitalism, power, struggle, and war. An illusion which may be cautiously forgiven in times of non-struggle... But to hold and perpetuate such illusions in a time of mass struggle - be it a struggle for socialist revolution or against fascist revolution - is treasonous to the highest degree.
"Anarcho-pacifism" is a "philosophy" which belongs in the minds of bourgeois hippies, individualists, lifestylists, and liberal theologians - minds which cannot or will not conceive of the possibility of revolution in any concrete sense. It is cowardice parading around in a revolutionary disguise, and it has no business associating itself with any revolutionary movement, as it only serves to undermine the movement with which it associates itself.

[x359594]

...As I see it the blanket rejection of all violence puts the violence of the opressed on par with the violence of their opressors and shows an extreme lack of class consciousness. Are anarcho-pacifists generally absolute pacifists for tactical or ethical reasons?

There is pacifism and non-violence, and I would say that pacifism is opposition to war, and if war is the health of the state, than anarchists are pacifists by virtue of their opposition to the state. This does not preclude violent resitance to the state.

As to non-violence, in present circumstances I trhink it's the best course to take. Non-violence is aggressive. Since the injustices in society are mainly in the institutional system even though the personal agents might be innocent or even quite sympathetic, it is necessary to prevent the unjust institutions from grinding on as usual. It is necessary not to shun conflict but to seek it out. So Gandhi, A. J. Muste and and Martin Luther King Jr. were continually inventing campaigns to foment apparent disorder when things apparently had been orderly.

Naturally, aggressive massive non-violence is not safe. (Gandhi lost thousands, and hundreds perished in the civil rights struggle.) If only mathematically, when there is a big crowd some will be hurt--sometimes because of one's own hotheads, more usually because the police panic and try to enforce impossible restrictions in the name of upholding Law and Order. On the other hand, actions of this kind are far less likely to lead to a massacre. In the present climate of cold violence armed with a lethal technology, this is a major concern.

In my opinion, this is the only strategy that addresses all aspects of the situation. It challenges unconcern; it attacks institutions and confronts people as well. It personalizes the conflict so that habitual and mechanical responses are not easy. It diminishes strangeness. It opens possibilities for the narrow to grow and come across, instead of shutting them out. It interrupts the downward spiral of the oppressed into despair, fanaticism and brutality. Most important, it is the only realistic strategy, because it leads to rather than prevents the achievement of a future community among all the combatants. We will have to live together in some community or other. How? In what community? We really do not know, but non-violent conflict is the way to discover and invent it.

I do not think that non-violence is incompatible with fringe violence or flare-ups of violence, so long as its own course is steadily political, appealing to justice, self-interest, and commonweal, and if the political object of the campaign speaks for itself. Gandhi, of course was a purist about avoiding violence, though he said that it was better to be violent against injustice than to do nothing; Muste and King were willing to co-operate with violent groups if they did not try to take over. Psychologically, indeed, it is probably an advantage for a non-violent movement to have a group in the wings committed to violent self-defense, since this quiets down the more rabid opposition and makes a calmer zone for real political and economic confrontation. (Sometimes it doesn't work out so smoothly.)

Finally, even advocates of violence are de facto non-violent in the industrial West. Conditions for armed struggle are not present in the US at this time (how it is for Europe I'll leave for European comrades to say.) The situation is different in parts of the Third World; for example, armed struggle has been an option in Mexico since the Revolution. For those unfamiliar with Mexico's history, Ruben Jaramillo led an insurrection in the countryside during the 1940s through 1950s, and armed struggle has continued there on and off down to the present. But we haven't reached that stage here in the US, and I don't see it arriving any time soon.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Pragmatic pacifism is understandable; that the cost of war, or the effects of starting a war are self-destructive in outcome, or that the price of a life lost is not worth the goal achieved. But this is not the case for anarchist revolution.

However, my argument, and I believe the argument of many individuals here, is that anarcho-pacifism results in counter-productivity, when battling the state which has hordes of individuals prepared to use violence and weapons, and a pay-check to back it up. It's possible that pure pacifism, even if inefficient, has a place in trying to make changes within the state, such as Gandhi (who I've yet to be convinced of being a valid "anarchist"), however it's doubtful that it could abolish the state. And therein lies the counter-productivity: recognizing you have to provoke an enemy who will attack, and thus more people end up dying.

Non-violent action has a place in revolution, but it is not going to be the means of dismantling the state. As the black liberation movement in the 60's proved, pacifist/non-violent action did help encourage change, but where would it have been without the militant actions of Malcolm X, who led an army of blacks to a hospital and threatened hell if a particular injured black man did not receive equally optimal treatment? "If he dies, we march." And look at the Black Panthers, a perfect example of how even the threat was able instill fear into those who would otherwise act violently against those in struggle.

And then of course, how do you define violence? If I blow up a building, and there is no one inside, is that violence? What about intimidation? Is that violence?

All in all- anarcho-pacifism could only be feasible by any stretch of the imagination as a post-revolutionary concept. However, even then, if it supersedes pragmatism, it become counter-productive. A good mixture, an opportunistic mixture, is the key to revolution, and has been for any successful revolution.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Tolstoy was a great writer of many pieces of fiction. His theory of the nonviolent overthrow of the capitalist state is one of those pieces of fiction.

[x359594]

...As the black liberation movement in the 60's proved, pacifist/non-violent action did help encourage change, but where would it have been without the militant actions of Malcolm X, who led an army of blacks to a hospital and threatened hell if a particular injured black man did not receive equally optimal treatment? "If he dies, we march." And look at the Black Panthers, a perfect example of how even the threat was able instill fear into those who would otherwise act violently against those in struggle...

I have to quibble with this somewhat. The black liberation movement in the US in the 20th century (it goes back to the very beginning of slavery in the North American colonies) starts in 1955 with the Montgomery bus boycott, a classic Ghandian campaign, and with no violent option as a recourse at that time.

Malcolm X in the case of the hospital threatened to occupy the premises and otherwise deny access to the hospital, not blow it up or burn it down, another typical non-violent tactic despite the rhetoric.

As for the Panthers, they were ruthlessly annihilated by the state even though they were entirely engaged in self-defense and not armed struggle. They carried arms as a form of self-defense when monitoring police behavior in their neighborhoods. Today, Cop Watch carries cameras and accomplishes the same thing, and the level of repression has not been lethal.

It seems to me that the greatest danger revolutionaries in the advanced industrial nations face is the mechanical violence of the national security state, but I agree that if non-violence supersedes pragmatism it becomes counter-productive.

[SubcomandanteJames]

I have to quibble with this somewhat. The black liberation movement in the US in the 20th century (it goes back to the very beginning of slavery in the North American colonies) starts in 1955 with the Montgomery bus boycott, a classic Ghandian campaign, and with no violent option as a recourse at that time.

Again, I've noted that non-violent/pacifist/Gandhian action has a place in revolution, but it is not sufficient to achieve the goal of abolishing the state. I never denounced non-violent tactics. I just don't fantasize about an anarchist revolution where violence won't be necessary in some form or another.



Malcolm X in the case of the hospital threatened to occupy the premises and otherwise deny access to the hospital, not blow it up or burn it down, another typical non-violent tactic despite the rhetoric.


He didn't threaten to burn it down. However, do you think that the people in the hospital were afraid of them "occupying" the hospital? There was a militaristic air to what he said, and the threat. You don't have to say "We're going to act violently" for the fear of violence to arise. Malcolm X was in no way a pacifist. He understood very much the militarist nature of his actions:


"I don't favor violence. If we could bring about recognition and respect of our people by peaceful means, well and good. Everybody would like to reach his objectives peacefully. But I'm also a realist. The only people in this country who are asked to be nonviolent are black people. And we won't give them that."






As for the Panthers, they were ruthlessly annihilated by the state even though they were entirely engaged in self-defense and not armed struggle. They carried arms as a form of self-defense when monitoring police behavior in their neighborhoods. Today, Cop Watch carries cameras and accomplishes the same thing, and the level of repression has not been lethal.


Do you think they walked around with bullets strapped around their bodies for the sake of self-defense? Again, I was referring to the threat of armed struggle/violence, not the action, in the black liberation movement. Besides, pacifism ARGUES AGAINST this form of action. So even if it was all self-defense, it STILL is not pacifistic. As for the Panthers, I was merely providing an example of the militarism of the movement, and though it was most successful with the Panthers perhaps, they had their successes, and had success with the Black Liberation movement. It took a mixture of pacifist and non-pacifist tactics. Their treatment during their pacifist activism more than anything validated their more militaristic stance. And if we really want to talk about Black Liberation and militarism, I wonder where they would be without SLAVE REBELLIONS and the Civil War.


It seems to me that the greatest danger revolutionaries in the advanced industrial nations face is the mechanical violence of the national security state, but I agree that if non-violence supersedes pragmatism it becomes counter-productive.

Yes, I agree. This is problematic. I would say use the workers to halt production, but there is such a stockpile. At this point, the revolution would need to be highly tactical until it can gain such technology. And this brings us back do point A: If we can believe in the overthrow of the hierarchical structure, it won't come from purely pacifist ideals.


I think we agree. My apologies if you felt that was downsizing pacifist actions. I merely believe that pacifism puts non-violence before pragmatism, which cannot be the cornerstone of revolution. If you can secure an anarchist society without violence... KUDOS! But don't let pacifist ideals run amok if a militant force comes to threaten that society, either. Do what's most effective, is the point.


Pacifism is an absolute, and absolutes on any end of the spectrum of tactics WON'T GET THE JOB DONE.

[gorillafuck]

Anarcho-pacifism has a long history, beginning at least with Leo Tolstoy. I can understand why it makes no sense to an orthodox Marxist, whose system depends on violence, but it should be respected as part of the greater anarchist movement. I believe in workers' struggle, but through peaceful means like the mass strike.
Historically both Marxism and Anarchism have been violent.

Edit: And when Malcolm X threatened to occupy the hospital, he didn't mean a "sit in" or some shit like that. He meant they were going to forcibly occupy that hospital and forcibly deny access to it.

[Howard509]

I never understood anarcho-pacifism. Is there anything short I can read which explains why people think pacifism follows from anarchist political philosophy?


Have you read On the Duty of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau or the Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy? Anarcho-pacifism presupposes pacifism, and then rejects the state as being an institution dependent upon violence.

This is a good article on Gandhi's anarchism:
Was Gandhi an Anarchist?
http://www.calpeacepower.org/0201/gandhi_anarchist.htm



Not a good sign.

Gandhi is more well known for his pacifism, but his thought really came from Tolstoy and Thoreau.

Civil Disobedience explains how nonviolent means can gradually abolish the state:
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html

All you'd really need is for the majority of people to withdraw their consent to following government.

[Howard509]

And that is where I stopped reading the article.:rolleyes:

Do you have something against the sermon on the mount? "Each according to his ability for each according to his need" is almost a direct quote from the New Testament.

[h0m0revolutionary]

..and then rejects the state as being an institution dependent upon violence.


That's your analysis of the state?
...that it's existence should be opposed because it is violent?

This site if revleft mate, for revolutionary leftists, you're neither.

[Howard509]

That's your analysis of the state?
...that it's existence should be opposed because it is violent?


Yes, that is a traditional anarchist position. While revolutionary anarchists may use violent means, the goal is always a nonviolent society.

In case you did not notice, my avatar is the Virgin Mary wearing a Zapatista bandana, which was painted by a Zapatista. Violence is, sometimes, the lesser evil to cowardice, but only when all nonviolent options have been exhausted.

[StalinFanboy]

Anarcho-pacifism has a long history, beginning at least with Leo Tolstoy. I can understand why it makes no sense to an orthodox Marxist, whose system depends on violence, but it should be respected as part of the greater anarchist movement. I believe in workers' struggle, but through peaceful means like the mass strike.
Why? I have no respect for pacifists.

People who put their morality above the struggle for liberty are counter-revolutionary.

[StalinFanboy]

Yes, that is a traditional anarchist position. While revolutionary anarchists may use violent means, the goal is always a nonviolent society.

In case you did not notice, my avatar is the Virgin Mary wearing a Zapatista bandana, which was painted by a Zapatista. Violence is, sometimes, the lesser evil to cowardice, but only when all nonviolent options have been exhausted.
An entirely non-violent society is idealistic and utopian. I only care about a free society. I think a lot of violence will disappear after the revolution, but to think that society will be nonviolent is silly.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Violence is, sometimes, the lesser evil to cowardice, but only when all nonviolent options have been exhausted.

But that is not anarcho-pacifism, and definitely not Gandhian, that is merely revolutionary pragmatism and liberty, a foundational belief of anarchists, but not anarcho-pacifists, as you've described.


In essence:
Pacifism should remain an admirable option to each situation, not a default for any.

[Howard509]

But that is not anarcho-pacifism, and definitely not Gandhian, that is merely revolutionary pragmatism and liberty, a foundational belief of anarchists, but not anarcho-pacifists, as you've described.


In essence:
Pacifism should remain an admirable option to each situation, not a default for any.

Have you read Gandhi?



I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm


Even when the lesser evil to cowardice, violence is an evil and a terrible tragedy. As Gandhi said, "Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice."

[h0m0revolutionary]

Have you read Gandhi?

Even when the lesser evil to cowardice, violence is an evil and a terrible tragedy. As Gandhi said, "Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice."

Again, no political opposition to violence, just some abstract moralism.

[Howard509]

Is it just me, or do certain members of this forum have an irrational hatred of Gandhi?

[StalinFanboy]

Is it just me, or do certain members of this forum have an irrational hatred of Gandhi?
No, he just sucks.

[Howard509]

No, he just sucks.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[9]

Is it just me, or do certain members of this forum have an irrational hatred of Gandhi?

I don't want my politics associated with Gandhi, and I don't want to see the anarchist movement further undermined by being associated with liberal philosophers. That doesn't mean I hate him, it just means I don't agree with or seek to emulate his philosophy.

[Howard509]

I don't want my politics associated with Gandhi, and I don't want to see the anarchist movement further undermined by being associated with liberal philosophers. That doesn't mean I hate him, it just means I don't agree with or seek to emulate his philosophy.

How was Gandhi not an anarchist? Did he not call himself an anarchist? Did he not believe in anarchist principles? Did he not hope for a stateless society? Did he not actively oppose the state? How did he undermine anarchism? What is deficient in his philosophy?

[9]

How was Gandhi not an anarchist? Did he not call himself an anarchist? Did he not believe in anarchist principles? Did he not hope for a stateless society? Did he not actively oppose the state? How did he undermine anarchism? What is deficient in his philosophy?

Perhaps I should rephrase my remark: He was not a revolutionary anarchist. Unfortunately, the term 'anarchist' has been perverted to mean anything on the face of the planet, so I should have been more specific. My sentiment about Gandhi is essentially in line with that of Albert Meltzer, who touches on it here:

http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html

[Howard509]

He was not a revolutionary anarchist.

That also is false. Gandhi believed in peaceful revolution, as did Tolstoy and Thoreau.

[9]

That also is false. Gandhi believed in peaceful revolution.

Right, which is like saying one believes in hot snow or rich proletarians or equitable capitalism.
"Peaceful revolution" is a pipedream that belongs in the sphere of theology, far far away from political theory.

[Howard509]

Right, which is like saying one believes in hot snow or rich proletarians or equitable capitalism.
"Peaceful revolution" is a pipedream that belongs in the sphere of theology, far far away from political theory.

Have you read On Civil Disobedience or The Kingdom of God is Within You?

The violence by communists and violent anarchists has really, really helped to create a more equitable world. Has it not? The so-called "propaganda of the deed," continued in today's "black bloc" has hurt, rather than helped, the anarchist movement.

[9]

Have you read On Civil Disobedience or The Kingdom of God is Within You?

The violence by communists and violent anarchists has really, really helped to create a more equitable world. Has it not? The so-called "propaganda of the deed," continued in today's "black bloc" has hurt, rather than helped, the anarchist movement.

Have you tried http://www.crimethinc.com/ or somewhere more suited to your brand of 'anarchism'?

[Howard509]

Have you tried http://www.crimethinc.com/ or somewhere more suited to your brand of 'anarchism'?

Cimethinc is COINTELPRO.

Don't you see how violence committed by anarchists has greatly set back the anarchist movement in the United States? What good is a movement if it can't receive popular support?

Until you've actually read The Kingdom of God is Within You and Civil Disobedience, what do you know about anarchist pacifism?

[9]

Cimethinc is COINTELPRO.

Don't you see how violence committed by anarchists has greatly set back the anarchist movement in the United States? What good is a movement if it can't receive popular support?

Unwise, individual acts of violence have done this, yes. Do I think that anarchism in the US would be any further along if it had been dogmatically non-violent? No. The bad rap that anarchism has is largely the product of capitalist propaganda. Though I think your understanding of anti-pacifists is confused. An anti-pacifist is not someone who is in favor of all acts of violence - merely someone who thinks violence is ultimately going to be necessary and that when it can be effectively utilized, it ought to be.

And my statement about crimethinc.com stands.

[Howard509]

violence is ultimately going to be necessary and that when it can be effectively utilized, it ought to be.


I've already quoted Gandhi that violence is sometimes necessary. That doesn't make it any less immoral and tragic.

[The Feral Underclass]

Leo Tolstoy was a christian.

There is a book by Ward Churchill called 'Pacifism As A Pathology' and I suggest you read it. The idea that we should role over and play the moral victim while the state violently attacks us is not only supremely offensive, it totally undermines our objective of creating an anarchist society.

As a matter of fact, as workers we have both the "right" and the justification to fight back and fight back with every power at our disposal. When the army and the police come to our barricades and attack us, we have a choice to make. Either we comply to their violence (which is what pacifism does as it provides no means to successfully fight and win) or we fucking fight back.

I choose to fight back. I choose to defend our gains and I choose to win.

[The Feral Underclass]

I've already quoted Gandhi that violence is sometimes necessary. That doesn't make it any less immoral and tragic.

Gandhi created an Indian ruling class that were as bad as the British imperialists. There's nothing sacred about Gandhi. He fucked over the Indian working class and had no problem with doing so.

[9]

I've already quoted Gandhi that violence is sometimes necessary. That doesn't make it any less immoral and tragic.

Morality is subjective and, in my opinion, not an appropriate measure for reaching political conclusions, but... I am not sure how you qualify as a pacifist if you view violence as acceptable in certain circumstances. Nor do I understand why you seek to associate anarchism with pacifism if you are not a 'non-violent absolutist'.
I don't think anyone here advocates the use of unnecessarily excessive violence to reach political ends, I certainly don't. But then, I don't see why any theological or otherwise subjective conception of morality need even factor into the equation when it is clear from a purely tactical standpoint that violence should not be utilized unless it is absolutely necessary, since overzealous violence in the name of 'anarchism' will only harm the movement 99.99% of the time at the present stage. Obviously building unions and coalitions, disseminating propaganda, raising consciousness among our coworker/the broader working class, and creating new/modernizing/expanding upon old aspects of anarchist theory is the present task at hand and, in my view, will remain the present task until substantial success has been achieved in all of the aforementioned arenas. So if you are saying you believe that violence should only be employed when it is necessary, you are on the same page as most anarchists as well as most other currents within the revolutionary left. No rational person wants to do something stupid to harm their own cause and obviously, when most of the 'Western' working class is already hostile to leftist ideas and labels, it would be a tactical disaster for revolutionaries to go around committing acts of violence on behalf of the left. Why you seek to bring religion or morality into it makes no sense to me if you do, indeed, support violence when violence is a necessary means to an end. :confused:

[Forward Union]

Do you have something against the sermon on the mount? "Each according to his ability for each according to his need" is almost a direct quote from the New Testament.

I can't stand lies.

[gorillafuck]

How was Gandhi not an anarchist? Did he not call himself an anarchist? Did he not believe in anarchist principles? Did he not hope for a stateless society? Did he not actively oppose the state? How did he undermine anarchism? What is deficient in his philosophy?
He supported the caste system, which any anarchist would find despicable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

Why can't you understand that?

[StalinFanboy]

Have you read On Civil Disobedience or The Kingdom of God is Within You?

The violence by communists and violent anarchists has really, really helped to create a more equitable world. Has it not? The so-called "propaganda of the deed," continued in today's "black bloc" has hurt, rather than helped, the anarchist movement.
You can measure that? Wow!

[ComradeOm]

You can measure that? Wow!In all fairness to Howard509, there is no question that propaganda of the deed was a complete and unmitigated failure as a revolutionary tactic. The most important measure of this being its effective abandonment by (most of) anarchism itself

Where Howard509 is both entirely wrong and somewhat disingenuous is in suggesting that propaganda of the deed is the only form of violence practised by anarchists or other revolutionaries. During so completely glosses over the role and efficiency of mass violence

[Howard509]

Leo Tolstoy was a christian.


What of it? Tolstoy also rejected the divinity of Christ and the established church. If the sermon on the mount were actually followed, we'd have a much better world.

It's not necessarily helpful to disparage religious faith. The Zapatistas don't disparage it, if anything they encourage religious faith as a motivator for social justice.

[Howard509]

Morality is subjective and, in my opinion, not an appropriate measure for reaching political conclusions, but... I am not sure how you qualify as a pacifist if you view violence as acceptable in certain circumstances. Nor do I understand why you seek to associate anarchism with pacifism if you are not a 'non-violent absolutist'.


Gandhi was a pacifist, yet he recognized the legitimacy of self-defense as a last resort less evil than doing nothing. I would have to agree.

There is a difference between pacifism, which can support violence as a last resort and only in defense, and passivism, which refuses to use violence in any circumstance.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Have you read Gandhi?



Even when the lesser evil to cowardice, violence is an evil and a terrible tragedy. As Gandhi said, "Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice."

Yes I've read Gandhi. I've also read where he wrote that the Jews should have "thrown themselves from the cliffs" rather than fight the Nazis. And do you feel that just because he said "Non-violence is the greatest virture, cowardice the greatest vice" means that he advocated violence if necessary? No. HE NEVER SAID THAT IN THAT STATEMENT. You are equating the opposite of cowardice as violence, saying that Gandhi supported it as a last resort, but this is a fallacious argument. He never says violence is a lesser evil than cowardice, he merely states cowardice is the greatest vice, and in his view taking a beating would be more courageous than fighting back.

[Howard509]

I can't stand lies.

What is a lie in loving your enemies and giving to the poor?

[Howard509]

He supported the caste system, which any anarchist would find despicable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

Why can't you understand that?

Gandhi actively worked to alleviate suffering of the lower castes.

[Howard509]

Yes I've read Gandhi. I've also read where he wrote that the Jews should have "thrown themselves from the cliffs" rather than fight the Nazis. And do you feel that just because he said "Non-violence is the greatest virture, cowardice the greatest vice" means that he advocated violence if necessary? No. HE NEVER SAID THAT IN THAT STATEMENT. You are equating the opposite of cowardice as violence, saying that Gandhi supported it as a last resort, but this is a fallacious argument. He never says violence is a lesser evil than cowardice, he merely states cowardice is the greatest vice, and in his view taking a beating would be more courageous than fighting back.

You're still ignoring the actual words of Gandhi:



I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor...

Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm


I still stand by the fact that there's an irrational hatred on Gandhi on this forum.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Gandhi was a pacifist, yet he recognized the legitimacy of self-defense as a last resort less evil than doing nothing. I would have to agree.

Wrong. He viewed violence, even in self-defense, as a part of the cowardice of non-courage. It was more courageous to take a beating in his opinion. This was the basis of all his actions/activism.




There is a difference between pacifism, which can support violence as a last resort and only in defense, and passivism, which refuses to use violence in any circumstance.
Sigh.
Again complete bull:


Thesaurus (Princeton University)
Noun1.passivism - the doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable.
SYNONYMOUS WITH:
pacifism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pacifism)



While the dichotomy between pacifism (or passivism) and martialism (or total aggression) may be contrived -- it is rare for an individual to adhere completely to either philosophy and rarer still for such a philosophy to be workable in real life.


You are trying to make pacifism (which is what Gandhi supported) seem like a down the middle of the road concept. It's not... it's the extreme form of nonviolence, on the opposite of martialism.

What your just tred to describe as pacifism ISN'T PACIFISM. That's merely the mutual understanding of liberty.

[SubcomandanteJames]

You're still ignoring the actual words of Gandhi:

"do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor..."

I still stand by the fact that there's an irrational hatred on Gandhi on this forum.

What you just quoted Gandhi as saying ISN'T pacifist. It's nationalist "death before dishonor".

Which of course makes null and void your argument that he was an anarcho-pacifist.

You can make arguments that aren't self-contradictory when they are about a man, no matter his achievements, is self-contradictory as well.

A nationalist anarcho-pacifist who advocated violence before dishonor?

THIS MAKES NO SENSE. THEY ARE NOT COMPATIBLE IDEALS.

[Howard509]

Wrong. He viewed violence, even in self-defense, as a part of the cowardice of non-courage. It was more courageous to take a beating in his opinion. This was the basis of all his actions/activism.


I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor...

Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm


How many times do you need to be quoted the same thing over and over again?

[SubcomandanteJames]

How many times do you need to be quoted the same thing over and over again?

Until you learn to read the posts above yours. :glare:



Again, your arguments are inconsistent with the beliefs you claim he propagated.

What you just quoted Gandhi as saying ISN'T pacifist. It's nationalist "death before dishonor".

Which of course makes null and void your argument that he was an anarcho-pacifist.

You can make arguments that aren't self-contradictory when they are about a man, no matter his achievements, is self-contradictory as well.

A nationalist anarcho-pacifist who advocated violence before dishonor?

THIS MAKES NO SENSE. THEY ARE NOT COMPATIBLE IDEALS.




Quote:
Originally Posted by PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Thesaurus (Princeton University)
Noun1.passivism - the doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable.
SYNONYMOUS WITH:
pacifism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pacifism)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia article on pacifism and martialism
While the dichotomy between pacifism (or passivism) and martialism (or total aggression) may be contrived -- it is rare for an individual to adhere completely to either philosophy and rarer still for such a philosophy to be workable in real life.
You are trying to make pacifism (which is what Gandhi supported) seem like a down the middle of the road concept. It's not... it's the extreme form of nonviolence, on the opposite of martialism.


What your just tried to describe as pacifism ISN'T PACIFISM. That's merely the mutual understanding of liberty.


Your arguments are based around
1. Changing what pacifism means
2. Equating Gandhi's claims to Gandhi's actions

And you just can't do that, no matter how heroic you think Gandhi was. He was what we was, not what he said. Pacifism is what it is, not what he says at the time.

[Howard509]

And you just can't do that, no matter how heroic you think Gandhi was. He was what we was, not what he said. Pacifism is what it is, not what he says at the time.

Jesus told his disciples to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. He also told them to purchase swords for their own self-defense. A pacifist can be someone who opposes violence as a political tactic while seeing it as an absolute last resort in self-defense that is up to the individual to choose. Condemning those who use violence in any possible circumstance would equate the victim with the aggressor. Being a lesser evil to cowardice, it still remains an evil.

It should be obvious that Gandhi was a heroic man. I also believe that the Zapatistas are heroic. There are only so many times a man can turn the other cheek before he must choose between acting or dying. That is up to the individual to choose.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Jesus told his disciples to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. He also told them to purchase swords for their own self-defense. A pacifist can be someone who opposes violence as a political tactic while seeing it as an absolute last resort in self-defense that is up to the individual to choose. Condemning those who use violence in any possible circumstance would equate the victim with the aggressor. Being a lesser evil to cowardice, it still remains an evil.

Great for Jesus! It's not pacifism/passivism.

[Howard509]

Great for Jesus! It's not pacifism/passivism.

Pacifism, as commonly understood, is opposition to violence as a political tactic, especially in opposition to war and militarism. It is not moral equivalence of a victim who acts in self-defense with his aggressor, though both are seen as committing an immoral act. Two actors can be committing immoral acts, with one being a lesser evil to the other. You're making the mistake of lumping all pacifists together, as if all of them morally equate the victim with the aggressor.


Against the doctrinal absolute prohibition of the use of violence or war, conditional pacifism admits its use under certain circumstances. Conditional pacifism from the deontological perspective admits that the enactment of duties cannot be considered in isolation, for they may overlap and hence require a conditional acceptance or a moral weighing. For the conditional pacifist, the duty to uphold peace and non-violence may conflict with the duty to save or defend lives against aggression, if the latter duty is accepted. Therefore, in cases of what Walzer calls supreme emergencies (Just and Unjust Wars), the duty to peace may be trumped by alternative ethical requirements.

To take an example from political theory that is an appropriate area of discussion here: a common defense of the use of violence or war is that it is a justifiable or legitimate procedure to defend rights, and rights theories are often supported from a conditional deontological position. The pacifist counters that the argument to violate rights to protect rights is incoherent, for the use of force inherently violates the rights it is supposed to defend or protect. The alleged paradox is resolved, it can be argued, by asserting that rights are things to be upheld and defended, firstly as negative claims requiring an absence of violation, and secondly as positive claims that require freedom to pursue goals. An aggressor violates both elements. A right cannot be a value unless it is defensible, but it does not mean that the rights of aggressors are infringed in defending one s rights, for, as Lockean theorists argue, aggressors lose rights in attacking others. Pacifists can disagree with this and argue that if rights theory is to be coherent, rights ought to be inviolable and inalienable. Hence if they are contingently held they cannot be deemed inviolable rights but conditional privileges , which may accordingly be removed if someone abuses their own rights entitlements by violating those of others.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pacifism.htm

[Janine Melnitz]

So okay Howard is a moron, but this raises a question I've been curious about lately:

That's your analysis of the state?
...that it's existence should be opposed because it is violent?
What definition of "the state" is popular with Anarchists nowadays? I'm not real familiar with the literature -- I only know what the Anarchists I've known have said, which was usually along the lines of "monopoly on violence" or "instrument of violence in the interests of a given class". Some of these kids decided (and I agreed) that this precluded mass violence in an "anti-statist" revolution; clearly a different concept of "the state" might not though.

Also

An "anarcho-pacifist" in Nazi Germany would not only be complicit in the crimes of the Nazis, but would also be the most vile form of hypocrite on the face of the planet.
Yeah -- liberals avoid the topic of underground Anarchist or Marxist groups during the Third Reich, but they love, love, love White Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Rose), who did literally nothing for anybody but print pamphlets imploring academics, of all people, to take down Hitler:

...every convinced opponent of National Socialism must ask himself how he can fight against the present "state" in the most effective way, how he can strike it the most telling blows. Through passive resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_resistance), without a doubt.
Yes: without a doubt. Not to downplay their very real sacrifice, but vomiting christ.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Pacifism, as commonly understood, is opposition to violence as a political tactic, especially in opposition to war and militarism. It is not moral equivalence of a victim who acts in self-defense with his aggressor, though both are seen as committing an immoral act. Two actors can be committing immoral acts, with one being a lesser evil to the other. You're making the mistake of lumping all pacifists together, as if all of them morally equate the victim with the aggressor.

I guess the problem that we are dealing with here is the debatable stance for what "pacifism" is, what Gandhi said, and so one so forth.

Even wikipedia notes the debate on meanings:
"Some pacifists, however, support physical violence for emergency defense of self or others."

This is by no means the default however, and is not consistent in Gandhi's teachings who, rather than fight back, thought the Jews should have thrown themselves from the cliffs. Two vastly different ideas from Gandhi.

And yet Gandhi's activism seems pacifist in nature (not fighting back), but his fervent nationalism and support of the caste system is not congruent with anarchism.

Even the EZLN (Zapatistas) who I love are not considered pacifist, because their currently peaceful/pacifistic ideals did not come around until the Mexican government settled for negotiation. Pacifist Las Abejas supported their goal, but not their violent means (which they would see merely as "defensive", yet it is not considered PACIFIST).

The definition of pacifism has changed with the so-called pacifists... but by definition it is the same as passivism. The EZLN understand they need a mix of both militant guerrilla tactics and peaceful activism... and its been successful for them to date.

[Misanthrope]

That also is false. Gandhi believed in peaceful revolution, as did Tolstoy and Thoreau.

"revolution is not child's play" - Bakunin.

[Howard509]

So okay Howard is a moron

I am a college graduate. I attended a predominantly leftist college, if not the most radical left college in the country. It's quite possible that I am more educated than you are. A moron is not anyone who disagrees with you.

[Pogue]

What should we do when the police attack us on picket lines, Howard?

[Howard509]

A distinction should also be made between personal pacifism, the individual choice to not use violence, and universal pacifism, the condemnation of anyone who commits violence in any circumstance.

[Howard509]

What should we do when the police attack us on picket lines, Howard?

I think that you should, if necessary, use physical force, but not in a way that causes death or permanent injury.

[Pogue]

I think that you should, if necessary, use physical force, but not in a way that causes death or permanent injury.

Have you ever been in a fight? Do you really think you think about 'trying not to cause permanent injury'?

What about if your country gets taken over by fascists. Say you were in occupied France during WW2 or in Spain in 1936.

What should you do then?

[Howard509]

What about if your country gets taken over by fascists. Say you were in occupied France during WW2 or in Spain in 1936.

What should you do then?

In that case, I might help the cause as a non-combatant. I believe that pacifism is a moral choice that one can and should make, not a requirement of all people.

[Pogue]

In that case, I might help the cause as a non-combatant. I believe that pacifism is a moral choice that one can and should make, not a requirement of all people.

But what should the rest of us do I mean?

[Forward Union]

In that case, I might help the cause as a non-combatant. I believe that pacifism is a moral choice that one can and should make, not a requirement of all people.

What makes that morality valid?

[Janine Melnitz]

I am a college graduate.
:lol: And aren't you proud

Anyway can anyone help me with my question about "the state" it is an honest one :confused:

[black magick hustla]

I am a college graduate. I attended a predominantly leftist college, if not the most radical left college in the country. It's quite possible that I am more educated than you are. A moron is not anyone who disagrees with you.

lol someone is dishing out his graduate degree. :rolleyes: there is a ton of morons and self inflated fools in graduate school in leftist departments that could be outargued by self-educated workers. what is next, the vanguard of the revolution are gonna be leftist academics?????? :lol:

[Durruti's Ghost]

Anyway can anyone help me with my question about "the state" it is an honest one :confused:

Defining the State is a tough task, but I'll give it a shot. To be a State and not just a criminal gang or a legitimate communal defense force, an organization must 1) have the purpose of enforcing the ethical beliefs of a population and 2) exempt itself from said enforcement.

Objections?

[Howard509]

But what should the rest of us do I mean?

Whatever is in your conscience, provided that you do no harm to the innocent. This is assuming, of course, that you are acting in self-defense or the defense of your comrades.

[Howard509]

Anyway can anyone help me with my question about "the state" it is an honest one :confused:

Please ask me again, this time without using insults.

[Howard509]

What makes that morality valid?

The right to life of even the most despicable.

[Janine Melnitz]

Please ask me again, this time without using insults.
I didn't ask you in the first place. I reckon you'd agree with the definition(s) I gave, which logically preclude revolutionary violence; I'm asking Anarchists who actually want to do anything effective how they define their target.

[Howard509]

I didn't ask you in the first place. I reckon you'd agree with the definition(s) I gave, which logically preclude revolutionary violence; I'm asking Anarchists who actually want to do anything effective how they define their target.

Fair enough.

I highly recommend The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy. In the book, Tolstoy writes that anarchism is simply something that society will evolve into, by one individual at a time choosing to follow Jesus' example of nonviolence, charity, and noncomplience with government. I believe this is why Gandhi said you should be the change you want in the world. No violent revolution would be necessary.

[Pogue]

Fair enough.

Do you oppose to actions of the WW2 partisans, and those who fought fascism at Cable Street?

[Howard509]

Do you oppose to actions of the WW2 partisans, and those who fought fascism at Cable Street?

I don't know what you are talking about, but I can tell you that I don't oppose the initial uprising of the Zapatistas. I believe they made the right decision in not trying to topple the government, which would have started a civil war. It was fully justified, in my view, for them to take back their land.

[Pogue]

I don't know what you are talking about, but I can tell you that I don't oppose the initial uprising of the Zapatistas. I believe they made the right decision in not trying to topple the government, which would have started a civil war. It was fully justified, in my view, for them to take back their land.

Your college educated but you haven't heard of the partisans or Cable Street?

[gorillafuck]

Fair enough.

I highly recommend The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy. In the book, Tolstoy writes that anarchism is simply something that society will evolve into, by one individual at a time choosing to follow Jesus' example of nonviolence, charity, and noncomplience with government. I believe this is why Gandhi said you should be the change you want in the world. No violent revolution would be necessary.
Well Leo Tolstoy seems like a neat dude but do you honestly think that a capitalist state would dismantle just because people wanted it to? You even said you oppose the state because it uses violence.

[Howard509]

Your college educated but you haven't heard of the partisans or Cable Street?

It's not like I'm a specialist when it comes to anything. Are you talking about the Jews or Poles who decided to fight back?

[Pogue]

It's not like I'm a specialist when it comes to anything. Are you talking about the Jews or Poles who decided to fight back?

Yeh, the anti-fascist partisans. They used violence. Do you oppose this?

[Howard509]

Yeh, the anti-fascist partisans. They used violence. Do you oppose this?

I don't know enough about it yet.

[Pogue]

Look it up then, then tell us.

[Howard509]

Well Leo Tolstoy seems like a neat dude but do you honestly think that a capitalist state would dismantle just because people wanted it to? You even said you oppose the state because it uses violence.

Tolstoy's argument is that if the majority of people did the right thing without needed to be told by government, and if they stopped supporting government as something important to society, the state would lose its sanction and simply wither away. This is also the position of Thoreau.

[Howard509]

Your college educated but you haven't heard of the partisans or Cable Street?

In terms of Cable Street, I support the right of demonstrators to publicly assemble, no matter how extreme or disgusting their political views. In terms of the anti-fascist partisans, I have to learn more about the human rights record of Marshall Tito.

[StalinFanboy]

In terms of Cable Street, I support the right of demonstrators to publicly assemble, no matter how extreme or disgusting their political views. In terms of the anti-fascist partisans, I have to learn more about the human rights record of Marshall Tito.
You support giving fascists an arena to spew their garbage?

WAT?!

[Howard509]

You support giving fascists an arena to spew their garbage?

WAT?!

It's the first amendment, pal. It protects my right to anarchist speech, and the fascist's right to fascist speech.

[StalinFanboy]

It's the first amendment, pal. It protects my right to speech, and the fascist's right to fascist speech.
I fixed it for you.

First amendment aside, do you believe fascists should have an arena to push their "politics?" An example would be post-revolution.

[ComradeOm]

It's not like I'm a specialist when it comes to anything. Are you talking about the Jews or Poles who decided to fight back?How about the split of the French pacifist movement during WWII? Would you support those many French pacifists (particularly of the Ligue Internationale des Combattants de la Paix) who resolutely opposed all war and actively collaborated with the Nazi/Vichy regimes?

[SubcomandanteJames]

So, in anarcho-pacifism, if we are to accept the premise that violence as a last resort, or in self-defense is acceptable (which is still a concept that pacifists themselves are debating (http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pacifism.htm)) then we come into a another problem: who remains the decider of the necessity of violence. In the case of the Zapatista's uprising, at what chronological point do we say now violence has become necessary? Or can only history decide if an action was pacifistic or not, with the 20/20 vision that looking back gives us. In example, because of these events to follow, what they did was necessary for success. Are we left to hope our "violence as a last resort" is pacifist? And then, where do we establish an end to the subjective nature of pro-self defense/last resort violence pacifism? Pacifism/passivism by definition is a rejection of all violence, but with these other rules that have been established by historical pacifists... what is the last resort? Is it when if I fail this time, all will be lost, thus I must be ready to use violence or would the pacifist say I still have a chance to settle this nonviolently, thus I should continue to abstain from violence? And doesn't that also mean we ignore violent pragmatism? I have the ability to kill a fascist leader who is invading my country, and he is (for some miraculous reason) in the theatre seat in front of me. We can both leave, and his violent reign continues while I non-violently "fight" back, or I can shoot out his brain, thus collapsing the highly centralized structure of his rule? And this brings me back to the point of last chance/resort. The next day, after we both left without violent interaction, he continues his murderous rampage and takes over my country. Shooting him has just became my last chance, and if I had done it, who knows if it would have been considered a last resort or not? And then, does that put the pacifist into a transitionary nature of existence? Everyone but the pacifists have been killed in the genocide of my people, are they no longer pacifists? Now is the time to stand up and use that last resort? Because if we view this scenario, we have to wonder where does EGOISM fit in? Is pacifism allowing the defense of others, or just one's self? Is pacifism allowing the "last resort" for others, or just in the preservation of one's self?

(Again, I'm using this in predominantly revolutionary/hands on combat. Pragmatic-pacifism should ALWAYS be used between warring states.)

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Yes, that is a traditional anarchist position. While revolutionary anarchists may use violent means, the goal is always a nonviolent society.

In case you did not notice, my avatar is the Virgin Mary wearing a Zapatista bandana, which was painted by a Zapatista. Violence is, sometimes, the lesser evil to cowardice, but only when all nonviolent options have been exhausted.

You realize the Zapatistas are armed revolutionaries right?

[RedBlackFreedom]

In my opinion it doesn't make sense to avoid violence if you know that the person you are attacking wants to violate/kill much more people (e.g. in a counter-revolution).
So in this case you could avoid violence to a lot of people by using violence against one.
So pacifism that says you shouldn't use any form of violence doesn't make sense to me.

[spiltteeth]

Just look at the results of Gahndi's pacifism -the creation of a theocratic Muslim Pakistan, at the cost of at least a million lives and the forcible transfer of an estimated fourteen million people while he urged non-violence to his fellow Hindus, even in the face of appalling atrocities, and received only more atrocities in return.
The lesson of Gandhi's failure is clear: a group that defines itself by its tolerance will lose against a group that doggedly pursues its own self-interest. We could call that a sociological law, if it were not so obvious

[Искра]

In terms of Cable Street, I support the right of demonstrators to publicly assemble, no matter how extreme or disgusting their political views. In terms of the anti-fascist partisans, I have to learn more about the human rights record of Marshall Tito.

What about Tito?

[Die Rote Fahne]

People are inherently violent. Obviously fist fights will still break out. The anarchist society WILL have to be able to defend itself from outsiders who would see it taken over

See Spanish Revolution.

[spiltteeth]

People are inherently violent. Obviously fist fights will still break out. The anarchist society WILL have to be able to defend itself from outsiders who would see it taken over

See Spanish Revolution.


Not to disparage the great Spanish revolution, but...you do realize they couldn't defend themselves from the crushing outsider forces?

[Искра]

"Anarchist society", or to better say libertarian communist society, can not be in one state... it's can be only achieved on international level. So, there will be no "outsiders" except people from Mars.

You can't expect to have an anarchy in one state! What would that be?! What would be an ideology of that society? Marxsim-Bakuninism-Leninism :D ha ha ha

[Misanthrope]

Not to disparage the great Spanish revolution, but...you do realize they couldn't defend themselves from the crushing outsider forces?

Not to needlessly bash your ideology's failures on a historical level but, The Soviet Union collapsed but not before failing to instill socialism before resorting to capitalism.


How is your post relevant at all?

[spiltteeth]

Not to needlessly bash your ideology's failures on a historical level but, The Soviet Union collapsed but not before failing to instill socialism before resorting to capitalism.


How is your post relevant at all?


It was a response to Propaganda's post -did you read it?

"The anarchist society WILL have to be able to defend itself from outsiders who would see it taken over

See Spanish Revolution."

I think the Spanish revolution failed " to defend itself from outsiders who would see it taken over"

I certainly wasn't trying to start some juvenile pissing contest "My revolution could beat up your revolution!"

But, personally, I believe the problem of defense to be THE main theoretical problem needing to be solved in Anarchy.

Chomsky, an anarchist, thinks this wouldn't be a problem in America, we simply dissolve our borders. OK, perhaps.
But he also says, and I agree, that any society would need some kind of centralized organ to control a military of tanks etc in say Europe.
Unless every country spontaneously dissolved themselves within 3 weeks of each other, this seems to me to be the main task of the anarchist theorization.
I agree with Chomsky when he says no one has found a solution to this problem.

And, if your looking for a historical case of what I'm talking about , I would suggest studying Spain.

However, if I'm wrong, and you believe the anarchist movement in Spain did in fact successfully defend itself from outsiders, let me know. I'm always willing to learn.

[Искра]

Chomsky is not an anarchist he's a member of some kind of socialist party in USA...

[Misanthrope]

It was a response to Propaganda's post -did you read it?

"The anarchist society WILL have to be able to defend itself from outsiders who would see it taken over

See Spanish Revolution."

I think the Spanish revolution failed " to defend itself from outsiders who would see it taken over"

I certainly wasn't trying to start some juvenile pissing contest "My revolution could beat up your revolution!"

But, personally, I believe the problem of defense to be THE main theoretical problem needing to be solved in Anarchy.

Chomsky, an anarchist, thinks this wouldn't be a problem in America, we simply dissolve our borders. OK, perhaps.
But he also says, and I agree, that any society would need some kind of centralized organ to control a military of tanks etc in say Europe.
Unless every country spontaneously dissolved themselves within 3 weeks of each other, this seems to me to be the main task of the anarchist theorization.
I agree with Chomsky when he says no one has found a solution to this problem.

And, if your looking for a historical case of what I'm talking about , I would suggest studying Spain.

However, if I'm wrong, and you believe the anarchist movement in Spain did in fact successfully defend itself from outsiders, let me know. I'm always willing to learn.

The Spanish Revolution is a far better example of socialism than the Soviet Union. How can you say The Soviet Union, which crushed justified uprisings and whose ideological father openly advocated transition from emergent worker collectives and councils to one man management and nationalized central firms is not socialism. The failure of the Soviet Union and the Bolsheviks to implement socialism is only a result of a failed ideology, a failure to cope with a revolutionary period. Spanish Anarchism failed because of war, because of fascist armies and lack of military experience among other things. The Soviet Union failed because of economic conditions. Socialism is an economic policy not a military strategy, and the Bolsheviks "socialism" failed. The Spanish Anarchist's military action failed.

You decide..

[spiltteeth]

The Spanish Revolution is a far better example of socialism than the Soviet Union. How can you say The Soviet Union, which crushed justified uprisings and whose ideological father openly advocated transition from emergent worker collectives and councils to one man management and nationalized central firms is not socialism. The failure of the Soviet Union and the Bolsheviks to implement socialism is only a result of a failed ideology, a failure to cope with a revolutionary period. Spanish Anarchism failed because of war, because of fascist armies and lack of military experience among other things. The Soviet Union failed because of economic conditions. Socialism is an economic policy not a military strategy, and the Bolsheviks "socialism" failed. The Spanish Anarchist's military action failed.

You decide..


What the hell was that?
"How can you say The Soviet Union, which crushed justified uprisings and whose ideological father openly advocated transition from emergent worker collectives and councils to one man management and nationalized central firms is not socialism."

Um....I didn't. And I think you meant IS socialism.

I just said centralizing a military defense, once an anarchist society is set up, is a big issue.

[spiltteeth]

Chomsky is not an anarchist he's a member of some kind of socialist party in USA...

Yea, he belongs to the democratic socialist party USA.

But he identifies himself as an anarchist/libertarian socialist, he defends anarchism, and all his political thinking derives from anarchist tradition.
Despite belonging to the DPUSA, and I don't know his thinking on that so I can't comment, I think its safe to say he's anarchist.

[Misanthrope]

What the hell was that?
"How can you say The Soviet Union, which crushed justified uprisings and whose ideological father openly advocated transition from emergent worker collectives and councils to one man management and nationalized central firms is not socialism."

Um....I didn't. And I think you meant IS socialism.

I just said centralizing a military defense, once an anarchist society is set up, is a big issue.

I think you're alone here when you think a firm that has one man management is socialism. Actually have a counter argument instead of just saying "What the hell is that?". A centralized defense institution is not mutually exclusive to anarchism.

[spiltteeth]

Again I didn't say anything about a firm having one man management being socialism.
Where are you getting this?
Also, I didn't say a centralized defense institution was mutually exclusive to anarchism.
I simply said a way to centralize a defense institution within an anarchistic society has not been developed yet and that its important.

Generally I argue only my own point of view, not the imaginary voices you hear.

Again - I DID NOT SAY ANY OF THE THINGS YOU SAY I SAID.

[x359594]

...Pacifism is an absolute, and absolutes on any end of the spectrum of tactics WON'T GET THE JOB DONE.

I'm in complete agreement with you here comrade.

And for the record, Gandhi advocted violence over doing nothing in the face of oppression, so to that extent he was pragmatic.

[x359594]

...he belongs to the democratic socialist party USA...

I wonder about that, especially since Chomsky harshly criticized DSPUSA in the 1990s for their support of the Democratic Party and the regressive Clinton policies both foreign and domestic.

I do know for a fact that belongs to the IWW, and that he belonged to MOBE during the Vietnam era. He also signs his name to various anti-Zionist statements put out by a variety groups, some of which claim him as a member even though he doesn't actually hold a card from them or otherwise pay dues to them.

Over the years Chomsky has been described as a Trotskyist, a Maoist and a Stalinist (as well as a petty bourgeois liberal reformist) based on the identity of the groups that have sponsored the talks that he's given at college campuses and other venues. For example, he was called a Sandinista when he gave a talk on Nicaragua in NYC in 1978 that was sponsored a Sandinista support group. (Along the same lines, I wouldn't be surprised to find Cornell West described as a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party because of his recent partnering with Carl Dix and appearance at RCP-sponsored events.)

But as he's made clear in several interviews, his sympathies are with anarchism, especially with anarcho-syndicalism, pace his introductions to Daniel Guerin's book Anarchism and Rudolf Rocker's Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism. He begins his collection of Vietnam era essays For Reasons of State with a lengthy quote from Bakunin.

[Black Dagger]

Split out trolling/flame/spam.

Can we please stop flaming people simply because they have a different opinion about revolutionary violence than most of us? It's extremely petty.

[Искра]

So, somebody who's in POLITICAL PARTY is an anarchist just because he's famous and just because he writes a lot of crap? Don't get me wrong I like to read Chomsky's books about USA's politics, and they are quite good, but he's no anarchist. Because, anarchism is more than sympathy it's ideology.

[x359594]

So, somebody who's in POLITICAL PARTY is an anarchist just because he's famous and just because he writes a lot of crap? Don't get me wrong I like to read Chomsky's books about USA's politics, and they are quite good, but he's no anarchist. Because, anarchism is more than sympathy it's ideology.

I don't believe that Chomsky belongs to a political party; no one has been able to produce his membership card, nor does he claim to belong to a political party even though several groups have claimed him as a member of their organization or party (and that includes Trotskyists, Maoists, Stalinists, democratic socialists, etc.) He is a member of the IWW and he was a member of MOBE during the Vietnam era.

If ideology is the test, than the underlying ideology of his critique of the state is an anarchist one; his book For Reasons of State is framed by a lenghty quotation from Bakunin, and his other writings bear this out.

In any case, to paraphrase an ancient carpenter, "It is by their fruits that ye shall know them, not by the ideologies assigned them by others."

As a side note, I'm a little surprised by the presence of so many self-appointed popes of anarchism at this site who decide ex-cathedra who is and who isn't an anarchist.

[Misanthrope]

Again I didn't say anything about a firm having one man management being socialism.
Where are you getting this?
Also, I didn't say a centralized defense institution was mutually exclusive to anarchism.
I simply said a way to centralize a defense institution within an anarchistic society has not been developed yet and that its important.

Generally I argue only my own point of view, not the imaginary voices you hear.

Again - I DID NOT SAY ANY OF THE THINGS YOU SAY I SAID.

Sorry, you're right. "Um....I didn't. And I think you meant IS socialism." I still stand by my point that The Spanish Revolution is a better example of socialism than the Soviet Union.

The argument you are presenting, rather, question you are presenting is, how would defense be managed in statelessness and classlessness. This is a "state of the gaps" argument, you are falling back on the state to solve such a problem that an alternative competent institution could solve. Let me ask you this, in communism how is defense managed?

[spiltteeth]

So, somebody who's in POLITICAL PARTY is an anarchist just because he's famous and just because he writes a lot of crap? Don't get me wrong I like to read Chomsky's books about Isa's politics, and they are quite good, but he's no anarchist. Because, anarchism is more than sympathy it's ideology.

Well, he has also done alot of protest work, at the very start of the Vietnam war, before there was any protest movement, he was in the first few people who orhanized and protested and was demonized because of it. Plus he gives plenty of free talks at anarchist orgs around the world.

[Pogue]

Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist with strong inclinations towards anarcho-syndicalism.

[Искра]

Well, he has also done alot of protest work, at the very start of the Vietnam war, before there was any protest movement, he was in the first few people who orhanized and protested and was demonized because of it. Plus he gives plenty of free talks at anarchist orgs around the world.
So, correct me if I'm wrong.
You claim that he's an anarchist because he protested, and because he talks a lot about anarchism.
Ok, well in Croatia a there's a few "intellectuals" which like to talk about anarchism, a lot, an they were on all protests, but still they are liberal pricks and their book about anarchism are so idiotic that that really hurts (guy wrote a book saying that Kropotkin and Bakunin theory's are too old, so that we should all me punx and make FNB).
What am I saying whit this? That it's not just important what somebody talks about. The more important thing is how somebody acts. If you are an anarchist you can't be in party. Your political work should be in some kind of anarchist organization. So, your theory is important, but your practice makes who you are (or who you are not).
And also why did you called me a Jerk? I have't offend you wiht anything... so act like your mommy tought you, please. :rolleyes:

[spiltteeth]

Sorry, you're right. "Um....I didn't. And I think you meant IS socialism." I still stand by my point that The Spanish Revolution is a better example of socialism than the Soviet Union.

The argument you are presenting, rather, question you are presenting is, how would defense be managed in statelessness and classlessness. This is a "state of the gaps" argument, you are falling back on the state to solve such a problem that an alternative competent institution could solve. Let me ask you this, in communism how is defense managed?

Well, I would rather live in socialist Spain than socialist Russia, but think circumstances in Russia were so different that had it tried to create a similar type socialism, it would have short lived.

Most of the "communist" countries have a centralized military, like capitalist countries, that is overseen by a Congress or Parliament within a state.

If not a state - then what type of organ would be used to maintain defense?
I don't think Anarchism has a clear answer to this. Chomsky says in some parts of the world -like America-no organ like this would even be needed, small militias would be enough within a Bakunin-like anarchist federation.

However in Europe there would be so much potential aggression all around that a very large army with tanks planes etc would need to be organized - how to organize this is I think THE main task of Anarchist theorists since no clear answer exists (besides the state).

[spiltteeth]

So, correct me if I'm wrong.
You claim that he's an anarchist because he protested, and because he talks a lot about anarchism.
Ok, well in Croatia a there's a few "intellectuals" which like to talk about anarchism, a lot, an they were on all protests, but still they are liberal pricks and their book about anarchism are so idiotic that that really hurts (guy wrote a book saying that Kropotkin and Bakunin theory's are too old, so that we should all me punx and make FNB).
What am I saying whit this? That it's not just important what somebody talks about. The more important thing is how somebody acts. If you are an anarchist you can't be in party. Your political work should be in some kind of anarchist organization. So, your theory is important, but your practice makes who you are (or who you are not).
And also why did you called me a Jerk? I have't offend you wiht anything... so act like your mommy tought you, please. :rolleyes:

WHOA! I didn't call you a jerk comrade! Chomsky always pushes a Bukunin type federation and he speaks at Anarchist organizations all the time and lends his suport and leads protests he's an amazing activst what more do you want!
As far as the The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), they claim him as one of there own but I've never heard of Chomsky saying he belongs, also it is techniqually not a party it is "the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International"

[Искра]

You said in your previous post that he's a member of "democratic socialist party of USA". Thats what I heard from a guy who's been in contact whit Chomsky, and since he's my comrade, I don't have a reason not to trust him.
I don't care about Chomsky, but if he's in party he's not an anarchist.

[Pogue]

Chomsky joined years ago and hasn't bothered to cancel his membership. He does not follow the groups ideology or attend meetings.

[Искра]

So in that way I can join a party, and not follow it's ideology or attend meetings, or vote for it on elections... would you consider me as an anarchist?

[Durruti's Ghost]

So in that way I can join a party, and not follow it's ideology or attend meetings, or vote for it on elections... would you consider me as an anarchist?

Umm...yes?


If not a state - then what type of organ would be used to maintain defense?
I don't think Anarchism has a clear answer to this. Chomsky says in some parts of the world -like America-no organ like this would even be needed, small militias would be enough within a Bakunin-like anarchist federation.

I don't see why an anarchist federation wouldn't be able to perform this function in other areas of the world as well. The purpose of the federations is to do the things that small collectives cannot do on their own, and defense would be part of this. If Collective X refused to give aid to Collective Y when State A attacked Collective Y, Collective X could be kicked out of the federation or put on some sort of probation. So, federations would be able to organize individual collectives into a common defense effort in this way.

[Искра]

You would consider me as an anarchist even I'm a party member?
I know that I wouldn't.

[x359594]

You said in your previous post that he's a member of "democratic socialist party of USA". Thats what I heard from a guy who's been in contact whit Chomsky, and since he's my comrade, I don't have a reason not to trust him...

Your comrade is in error. Chomsky harshly criticized the DSA in the 1990s when they were endorsing Clinton policies. Earlier he poured scorn on their antecedent groups the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM) for their pro-statist stance. These two formations combined to become the Democratic Social Party of America. He didn't belong to Social Democrats USA either.

I've had contact with Chomsky over the years too. I first met him face to face in 1976 when he came to New York City to speak at the IWW Monthly Forum. He joined the Industrial Workers of the World around that time and has been a dues paying member on and off since then. THE IWW is not a party by the way, it's a revolutionary industrial union.

In 1979 Chomsky sponsored Agustin Souchy's trip to Boston when Souchy was touring North America on behalf of the newly re-constituted CNT/FAI, so if you consider the Federación Anarquista Ibérica a political party, then here is a case of Chomsky endorsing a party. Otherwise, he has steered clear of political parties.

I've talked to him many from the late 1970s through the 1980s when he was drawing attention to state sponsored terrorism in Central America, the 1990s when he was analysing US interventions in the Middle East and the "new military humanism" on display in the Balkans, down to the present decade.

The last time I talked to Chomsky in person was in late 2001 and he said nothing to us about belonging to a political party when someone asked him, "Don't you wish you had voted for Gore?" His replied absolutely not, and added that building political parties, even the most radical, would not result in the dismantling of the institutions of power and domination.

But again, the real test of any one's ideology is not conformity to a set of abstract principles by self-appointed custodians of ideological purity, but rather it is what role they play in the struggle for human emancipation and how they go about their task in that struggle.

[Искра]

I doubt that he's in error.

And I know what IWW is. I just got letter of support for Croatian shipyards from one of their members.

[spiltteeth]

Umm...yes?



I don't see why an anarchist federation wouldn't be able to perform this function in other areas of the world as well. The purpose of the federations is to do the things that small collectives cannot do on their own, and defense would be part of this. If Collective X refused to give aid to Collective Y when State A attacked Collective Y, Collective X could be kicked out of the federation or put on some sort of probation. So, federations would be able to organize individual collectives into a common defense effort in this way.


Well, for purposes of strategy, in say Europe, all the collectives militias, would need to be in sync, not to mention the problem of use of tanks etc, therefore some organ would needed to give instructions which all the militias, in certain cases, could unify against, the strategy would need to be coordinated with all the collectives and agreed upon, so some form of hierarchal centralizing organ would be needed or something entirely new which, as Chomsky has said and I agree, does not yet exist or else a unified response would be inefficient or non-existent and chaotic.

[Искра]

Hierarchy? In "anarchist revolution"? I'm 100% against that. You could read about Mahknovis movement or about Spain to get a clue how did they organized their armies. I don't know much about it, but I'll be 1st against one centralized organ which is 1st in hierarchy.

[spiltteeth]

Hierarchy? In "anarchist revolution"? I'm 100% against that. You could read about Mahknovis movement or about Spain to get a clue how did they organized their armies. I don't know much about it, but I'll be 1st against one centralized organ which is 1st in hierarchy.

As I said, a hierarchical centralized committee, or whatever you want to call it, is the only solution presented to coordinate various collections under a unified strategy, since Anarchists are against such a thing, a NEW type of organization must be theorized.
You can be against it, but you must come up with something new then (I believe)
This is one, of many, of the reasons the Spanish revolution did not last.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Well, for purposes of strategy, in say Europe, all the collectives militias, would need to be in sync, not to mention the problem of use of tanks etc, therefore some organ would needed to give instructions which all the militias, in certain cases, could unify against, the strategy would need to be coordinated with all the collectives and agreed upon, so some form of hierarchal centralizing organ would be needed or something entirely new which, as Chomsky has said and I agree, does not yet exist or else a unified response would be inefficient or non-existent and chaotic.

Why wouldn't a body in which representatives from each militia determine grand strategy and carry the decisions made back to their respective militias (who then determine tactics themselves) be sufficient to organize an efficient, coordinated campaign? (This is basically how anarchist federations work.) Why does there have to be a chain of command of the sort that is present in bourgeois armies--if that is indeed what you mean by "hierarchical centralizing organ"?

[Искра]

I don't wanna act like a moderator, but you could open a new topic for this issue.
Also, I think that revolution itself in 21st century can be only international. Therefore that collective body can be some kind of platform of anarchist organizations/union, but this platform of body wont make decisions. Decision will be made in militias, organisations, unions etc. and this body will try to coordinate them. We would need a much greater communication between the groups etc. But, I'm not capable of taking of this since I have never been in revolution and I haven't read a lot about strategy from the past.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I don't wanna act like a moderator, but you could open a new topic for this issue.

Yeah, a thread on anarcho-pacifism is not the best place to have this discussion, primarily because most of the people who are interested in/knowledgeable about revolutionary organization and strategy aren't going to be interested in anarcho-pacifism.

[Искра]

Kill a hippie and start a class war ha ha ha ha :D

[spiltteeth]

Why wouldn't a body in which representatives from each militia determine grand strategy and carry the decisions made back to their respective militias (who then determine tactics themselves) be sufficient to organize an efficient, coordinated campaign? (This is basically how anarchist federations work.) Why does there have to be a chain of command of the sort that is present in bourgeois armies--if that is indeed what you mean by "hierarchical centralizing organ"?


Yea, maybe this thread out to be moved.
However, this would only work if all Representatives agreed. Look at health care in the US, no one can agree and the bill gets weakened. In military planning everything has to be exact. How each part acts must be precisely coordinated -everyone has to be in complete agreement, compromise can be disastrous.
Plus all military actions have political consequences, so each collective would have to agree such and such a technique was the best one.
It'd be tough

[Durruti's Ghost]

Yea, maybe this thread out to be moved.
However, this would only work if all Representatives agreed. Look at health care in the US, no one can agree and the bill gets weakened. In military planning everything has to be exact. How each part acts must be precisely coordinated -everyone has to be in complete agreement, compromise can be disastrous.
Plus all military actions have political consequences, so each collective would have to agree such and such a technique was the best one.
It'd be tough

Well, yes, this would be a problem, but I don't think it would be as much of a problem as you suggest. Say a hundred militias are trying to work out a coordinated campaign and so each sends a delegate to federal body. 70 delegates think Plan A is absolutely brilliant, while 30 delegates think Plan B is. However, neither Plan A nor Plan B would work without support from at least 90 militias. Don't you think the delegates from those 30 dissenting militias could be persuaded to go along with the federation's plan, considering 1) the alternative would be to leave the federation, which would be a very bad move, and 2) their plan won't work without the support of the other federated militias anyway?

[Искра]

Make another topic... please :D
I don't want to visit anarcho-pacifism no more. That's bad for my macho attitude and my girl won't like me anymore :(

[Misanthrope]

Well, I would rather live in socialist Spain than socialist Russia, but think circumstances in Russia were so different that had it tried to create a similar type socialism, it would have short lived.

Most of the "communist" countries have a centralized military, like capitalist countries, that is overseen by a Congress or Parliament within a state.

If not a state - then what type of organ would be used to maintain defense?
I don't think Anarchism has a clear answer to this. Chomsky says in some parts of the world -like America-no organ like this would even be needed, small militias would be enough within a Bakunin-like anarchist federation.

However in Europe there would be so much potential aggression all around that a very large army with tanks planes etc would need to be organized - how to organize this is I think THE main task of Anarchist theorists since no clear answer exists (besides the state).

Well I would argue that Anarchic Spain practiced genuine socialism in an ongoing war zone and The Bolsheviks attempted to institute socialism in a post revolutionary period, and failed. I see this as a direct link to ideology and the implementation of such and not the material conditions.

What communist countries? Do you even know what communism is, a stateless, classless society. Are you a communist?

The state is not the only institution to provide a competent defense. I don't see why a voluntary government can't provide defense? Or why these voluntary governments wouldn't be able to form alliances and so on.

[spiltteeth]

Well, yes, this would be a problem, but I don't think it would be as much of a problem as you suggest. Say a hundred militias are trying to work out a coordinated campaign and so each sends a delegate to federal body. 70 delegates think Plan A is absolutely brilliant, while 30 delegates think Plan B is. However, neither Plan A nor Plan B would work without support from at least 90 militias. Don't you think the delegates from those 30 dissenting militias could be persuaded to go along with the federation's plan, considering 1) the alternative would be to leave the federation, which would be a very bad move, and 2) their plan won't work without the support of the other federated militias anyway?

No, I don't think they would leave, although they might, I think they would seek a partial compromise, and compromises really don't do well in large scale Military endeavors. But remember its not just plan A vs plan B or C, its hundreds of detailed decisions and back-up plans and on the moment reversals, to have a debate or meeting where then each rep goes back to his individual collectives mass approval every time a reversal takes place or the war takes an unexpected turn is very impractical. Someone needs the authority to make decisions quickly and authoritatively.
Also, you've seen the fights here over small minutia, imagines getting all those collectives rep's to agree on all the details? I think such an organization as you have posited would be chaos.

[spiltteeth]

Well I would argue that Anarchic Spain practiced genuine socialism in an ongoing war zone and The Bolsheviks attempted to institute socialism in a post revolutionary period, and failed. I see this as a direct link to ideology and the implementation of such and not the material conditions.

What communist countries? Do you even know what communism is, a stateless, classless society. Are you a communist?

The state is not the only institution to provide a competent defense. I don't see why a voluntary government can't provide defense? Or why these voluntary governments wouldn't be able to form alliances and so on.


Well, I still don't see things as either Spain or Russia -choose. Both ultimately "failed" if thats how you want to view it. To completely dismiss material circumstances is silly, after all, the Bolshevik ideology (weather it was good or bad) was at least in part determined by the circumstances, how could it be otherwise.
I really have no interest in deciding which was "better."

You asked how a communist country have used a military, I used communist in quotations -"communist"-because i thought you were still trying to compare "communist" Russia to Spain.
But in a real communist country? Thats my point - I don't know and as far as I can tell, like Chomsky, I don't think anyone has come up with an answer.

QUOTE :
"The state is not the only institution to provide a competent defense. I don't see why a voluntary government can't provide defense? Or why these voluntary governments wouldn't be able to form alliances and so on."

Well, I didn't say there couldn't be alliances, obviously there would be. As too why something is needed if a state is not in place a Bakunin federalist type anarchist society, for the reasons in my posts, i don't think such an org could provide for a military large scale defense, since decisions would need to be made quickly and authoritatively, and cooperation would have to be exact, and obedience percise. It is why LARGE military in general are highly centralized and hierarchal.

[Misanthrope]

Well, I still don't see things as either Spain or Russia -choose. Both ultimately "failed" if thats how you want to view it. To completely dismiss material circumstances is silly, after all, the Bolshevik ideology (weather it was good or bad) was at least in part determined by the circumstances, how could it be otherwise.
I really have no interest in deciding which was "better."

You asked how a communist country have used a military, I used communist in quotations -"communist"-because i thought you were still trying to compare "communist" Russia to Spain.
But in a real communist country? Thats my point - I don't know and as far as I can tell, like Chomsky, I don't think anyone has come up with an answer.

QUOTE :
"The state is not the only institution to provide a competent defense. I don't see why a voluntary government can't provide defense? Or why these voluntary governments wouldn't be able to form alliances and so on."

Well, I didn't say there couldn't be alliances, obviously there would be. As too why something is needed if a state is not in place a Bakunin federalist type anarchist society, for the reasons in my posts, i don't think such an org could provide for a military large scale defense, since decisions would need to be made quickly and authoritatively, and cooperation would have to be exact, and obedience percise. It is why LARGE military in general are highly centralized and hierarchal.

I'm not dismissing the material conditions. The Bolshevik ideology ultimately failed at ever implementing socialism. Is this because of the material circumstances? Yes, but what do you expect after a revolution? The material circumstances are irrelevant in comparing Spain and Russia because both were effected by the conditions around them. The difference is, Spain actually implemented stateless socialism, The Bolsheviks didn't.

The two societies had completely different ideologies but they had the same goal, stateless socialism. I think it is important to look at the historical examples of anarchism and Lenninism to see which ideology is more successful in implementing communism.

Why don't you think an alliance compiled of voluntary organizations can provide a defense, if needed?

[Howard509]

If you want to understand how Jesus was a radical pacifist and socialist, I recommend reading the Politics of Jesus by John Yoder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard_Yoder

I am an anarchist because I'm a pacifist. I am a pacifist because Jesus was a pacifist.

[gorillafuck]

If you want to understand how Jesus was a radical pacifist and socialist, I recommend reading the Politics of Jesus by John Yoder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard_Yoder

I am an anarchist because I'm a pacifist. I am a pacifist because Jesus was a pacifist.
I didn't know it was acceptable for pacifists to cast people into a lake of fire.

[Howard509]

I didn't know it was acceptable for pacifists to cast people into a lake of fire.

That's all metaphorical, if Jesus actually said that.

[Howard509]

19th century individualist anarchists may not have been pacifists, as they believe in self-defense, yet they disapproved of violence as a political tactic. I don't universally condemn those who resort to violence in all circumstances, but I would like recognition of non-aggression as one of many longstanding currents within anarchism.



On the question of non-violence, as a rough rule of thumb, the movement divides along Individualist and Social lines. Most Individualist anarchists support purely non-violent tactics of social change, as do the Mutualists. However, Individualist anarchism is not pacifist as such, as many support the idea of violence in self-defence against aggression. Most social anarchists, on the other hand, do support the use of revolutionary violence, holding that physical force will be required to overthrow entrenched power and to resist state and capitalist aggression (although it was an anarcho-syndicalist, Bart de Ligt, who wrote the pacifist classic, The Conquest of Violence). As Malatesta put it, violence, while being "in itself an evil," is "justifiable only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others from violence" and that a "slave is always in a state of legitimate defence and consequently, his violence against the boss, against the oppressor, is always morally justifiable." [Op. Cit., p. 55 and pp. 53-54] Moreover, they stress that, to use the words of Bakunin, since social oppression "stems far less from individuals than from the organisation of things and from social positions" anarchists aim to "ruthlessly destroy positions and things" rather than people, since the aim of an anarchist revolution is to see the end of privileged classes "not as individuals, but as classes." [quoted by Richard B. Saltman, The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin p. 121, p. 124 and p. 122]

Violence is authoritarian and coercive, and so its use does contradict anarchist principles. That is why anarchists would agree with Malatesta when he argues that "[w]e are on principle opposed to violence and for this reason wish that the social struggle should be conducted as humanely as possible." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 57] Most, if not all, anarchists who are not strict pacifists agree with pacifist-anarchists when they argue that violence can often be counterproductive, alienating people and giving the state an excuse to repress both the anarchist movement and popular movements for social change. All anarchists support non-violent direct action and civil disobedience, which often provide better roads to radical change.
So, to sum up, anarchists who are pure pacifists are rare. Most accept the use of violence as a necessary evil and advocate minimising its use. All agree that a revolution which institutionalises violence will just recreate the state in a new form. They argue, however, that it is not authoritarian to destroy authority or to use violence to resist violence. Therefore, although most anarchists are not pacifists, most reject violence except in self-defence and even then kept to the minimum.
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/An_Anarchist_FAQ_-_Is_anarchism_pacifistic%3F

[Howard509]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lEko6kMfng

You talk about your revolution, well, that's fine
But what are you going to be doing come the time?
Are you going to be the big man with the tommy-gun?
Will you talk of freedom when the blood begins to run?
Well, freedom has no value if violence is the price
Don't want your revolution, I want anarchy and peace

You talk of overthrowing power with violence as your tool
You speak of liberation and when the people rule
Well ain't it people rule right now, what difference would there be?
Just another set of bigots with their rifle-sights on me

But what about those people who don't want your new restrictions?
Those that disagree with you and have their own convictions?
You say they've got it wrong because they don't agree with you
So when the revolution comes you'll have to run them through
You say that revolution will bring freedom for us all
Well freedom just ain't freedom when your back's against the wall

You talk of overthrowing power with violence as your tool
You speak of liberation and when the people rule
Well ain't it people rule right now, what difference would there be?
Just another set of bigots with their rifle-sights on me

Will you indoctrinate the masses to serve your new regime?
And simply do away with those whose views are too extreme?
Transportation details could be left to British rail
Where Zyklon B succeeded, North Sea Gas will fail
It's just the same old story of man destroying man
We've got to look for other answers to the problems of this land

You talk of overthrowing power with violence as your tool
You speak of liberation and when the people rule
Well ain't it people rule right now, what difference would there be?
Just another set of bigots with their rifle-sights on me

Vive la revolution, people of the world unite
Stand up men of courage, it's your job to fight

It all seems very easy, this revolution game
But when you start to really play things won't be quite the same
Your intellectual theories on how it's going to be
Don't seem to take into account the true reality
Cos the truth of what you're saying, as you sit there sipping beer
Is pain and death and suffering, but of course you wouldn't care

You're far too much of a man for that, if Mao did it so can you
What's the freedom of us all against the suffering of the few?
That's the kind of self-deception that killed ten million jews
Just the same false logic that all power-mongers use
So don't think you can fool me with your political tricks
Political right, political left, you can keep your politics
Government is government and all government is force
Left or right, right or left, it takes the same old course
Oppression and restriction, regulation, rule and law
The seizure of that power is all your revolution's for
You romanticise your heroes, quote from Marx and Mao
Well their ideas of freedom are just oppression now

Nothing changed for all the death, that their ideas created
It's just the same fascistic games, but the rules aren't clearly stated
Nothing's really different cos all government's the same
They can call it freedom, but slavery is the game

Nothing changed for all the death, that their ideas created
It's just the same fascistic games, but the rules aren't clearly stated
Nothing's really different cos all government's the same
They can call it freedom, but slavery is the game
There's nothing that you offer but a dream of last years hero
The truth of revolution, brother................... is year zero.

[The Feral Underclass]

What of it?

The belief in god is irrational and harmful.


Tolstoy also rejected the divinity of Christ and the established church. If the sermon on the mount were actually followed, we'd have a much better world.

You mean if people treated each other with more respect. Yeah, of course it would. That's not a particularly religious message, is it?


It's not necessarily helpful to disparage religious faith.

I don't agree.


The Zapatistas don't disparage it, if anything they encourage religious faith as a motivator for social justice.

Which is fundamentally wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you want to understand how Jesus was a radical pacifist and socialist, I recommend reading the Politics of Jesus by John Yoder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard_Yoder

I am an anarchist because I'm a pacifist. I am a pacifist because Jesus was a pacifist.

Please don't sermonise. This forum has clear rule against preaching. If you want to talk about religious ideas, do it in the religious forum.

Consider this a verbal warning.

[Howard509]

Please don't sermonise. This forum has clear rule against preaching. If you want to talk about religious ideas, do it in the religious forum.

Consider this a verbal warning.

How is it any different from saying I'm a pacifist because Martin Luther King or Gandhi was a pacifist? Good men deserve respect, regardless of the religious movements founded around them.

[Искра]

How is it any different from saying I'm a pacifist because Martin Luther King or Gandhi was a pacifist? Good men deserve respect, regardless of the religious movements founded around them.
There's no difference. M. L. K. and Gandhi's places only in religious forum. There are no good man, there are no bad man. On this forum there are only 2 classes and evil Bolsheviks waiting around every corner... shhhhhhh they are spying on me!

[The Feral Underclass]

How is it any different from saying I'm a pacifist because Martin Luther King or Gandhi was a pacifist? Good men deserve respect, regardless of the religious movements founded around them.

The difference is that one of them is fictitious.

And you didn't respond to my other post and the bottom of the last page.

[gorillafuck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lEko6kMfng
I like Crass's music but I don't give a shit what they say. They're annoying idiots.

[Howard509]

The difference is that one of them is fictitious.


That is a fringe position rejected by the scholarly community, whether Christian or non-Christian.

Jesus is a great example that an anarchist or pacifist can have.

Easter Special: Can a Christian be an Anarchist?
Ammon Hennacy was a war resister who, while imprisoned during WWI for refusing to register for the draft, experienced a conversion from Socialism and atheism to Christian anarchism. Hennacy later went on to work with Dorothy Day and others at the CatholicWorker. In this excerpt from his 1954 autobiography, Hennacy and Day debate a group of atheists over the legitimacy of Christian anarchism.
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=03/04/19/2289480

[gorillafuck]

That is a fringe position rejected by the scholarly community, whether Christian or non-Christian.
Anarcho-pacifism is a fringe ideology.

Whether something is "fringe" or not doesn't mean it can't be right.

[The Feral Underclass]

That is a fringe position rejected by the scholarly community, whether Christian or non-Christian.

So there is conclusive evidence that there existed a man who was the son of god?


Jesus is a great example that an anarchist or pacifist can have.

According to what?


Easter Special: Can a Christian be an Anarchist?

No.

[The Feral Underclass]

Howard, you haven't addressed my criticisms of pacifism. Namely, that it is reactionary on the basis of denying the working class a legitimate 'right' to fight back against the alienation and oppression in a way that will actually mean us winning.

In a revolutionary situation, if we have challenged capital to that point the bourgeoisie are never going to let that happen again. We will find ourselves in a massive period of reaction that will be even more difficult to over come that the period we are in right now.

What you are proposing is a tactic that will not only mean certain defeat, it will role back the revolutionary movement to the point of no existence, from which it may never recover.

If there is an option between using violence and winning and sitting on our moral principle and losing, I know what I would choose. But then again I have to go to work every day to earn £5.73 an hour to barley survive. I have my freedom from exploitation and alienation to win.

[The Bear]

i still find this ideology confusing.... anarchism and pacifism kinda get hard togheter