A question for pacifist anarchists

[Quail]

Well, if there are any on this forum. I was just wondering how you define "violence" and what you would be willing to do to defend yourself against the violence of the state? I don't really know that much about pacifist anarchism and wondered if anyone could share their knowledge and thoughts.

[Sasha]

think krimkrams describes as one but further you might be better of asking this in OI learning, i think most pacifists here are restricted (either for preaching or being anti-choice or both)

[Stranger Than Paradise]

When I was younger I called myself an Anarcho-Pacifist. I suppose I was pretty confused back then though and didn't know how a revolution would come about. This led me to the logical conclusion of realisation that pacifism will be a failure. I think back then though, and remember I was very confused I was against ANY violence as a tool. I think I called myself this in part to try and escape the negative stigma and ancient stereotype of anarchist bomb throwers.

[ComradeOm]

Ultimately all pacifists have to ask themselves whether they agree with Leon Emery's infamous phrase: 'rather servitude than war'

[hatzel]

Whoops! Didn't see this one, sorry for zipping in late :blushing:

Anyway...it is a fact undeniable that a lot of anarcho-pacifist thought stems from Christianity, as many of its earliest proponents were Christian anarchists. Although the dominance of Christian anarchists within the anarcho-pacifist movement has drastically reduced over the years, many of their ideas still date back to their Christian origins. As such, that famous quote from the Sermon on the Mount about turning the other cheek still rings true for many, and one might suggest, yes, that they would subscribe to the idea of non-resistance, even as a means of self-defense. I say non-resistance, instead I should say non-violent resistance. I've heard rumours that defenses around cities and fortresses and so on took a huge leap forward thanks to some pacifist group in China a few thousand years ago. Reluctant to fight against their invaders, they just did their utmost to develop an impenetrable barrier to protect them. One might argue, though, that had these walls been breached, the inhabitants of the city / fortress would have actually fought back. Still, the non-violent defensive aspects would have still been given priority. This would remain the mainstream opinion in anarcho-pacifism, that it is better to defend than it is to attack in self-defense. As such, an anarcho-pacifist would look upon anti-missile systems, which can fire missiles out of the sky, as more preferable to air/surface-to-surface missiles which can kill whoever is firing these missiles and destroy their infrastructure. The latter being a more offensive form of defense.

An interesting case, for example, would be Gustav Landauer (avid followers of my posts might notice that I mention his writings far too often, but I just so happen to consider him a truly remarkable thinker :rolleyes:), who was definitely both an anarchist and a pacifist. Although he didn't ever actually claim to be an anarcho-pacifist, this should be of little surprise, as the movement didn't really come together until a few decades after his death. We could call him a proto-anarcho-pacifist. Anyway, he wrote an essay in 1912 called 'Revolution, Nation und Krieg'. This was predominantly concerned with the relationship between these three things (though 'revolution' in this case did not refer only to the hypothetical future socialist revolution, but any revolution), but there are a few interesting points in it. Firstly, in discussing the various historical and contemporary revolutions in France, Mexico, Turkey, China, wherever, he states categorically that the newly formed state is forcibly dragged into war for self-defense. That is to say, in the aftermath of any of these revolutions, there inevitably existed forces which attempted to recapture power, or to take advantage of the instability in the area to increase their own power. That is to say, he accepts that, as long as there are neighbouring states, a revolution will be threatened, and, should these neighbouring states make the decision to go to war, the revolution must act in self-defense, lest the revolution be quashed at its earliest stages. However, he does not consider this a particularly productive thing. If I may cite from his essay:


It is of course right to rally behind slogans such as: "We have to get rid of the state!" or "We have to create a different social order!" However, this does not change the fact that states do exist and that we have to deal with them. Neither does it change the fact - and let me emphasise this, as it is very important, but all too often overlooked - that it is not only states that go to war, but also young nations united and created by revolution; nations that are forced to defend themselves against the aggressor states. [...] No people can guarantee freedom and a just order when there is no solidarity among all peoples in the struggle against war and the state. As long as this struggle is not won, war will remain a reality - not only between the states, but also as a means of defense of revolutionary nations. [...] Yes, the emergence and action of an individual, a group, a people or the masses can be sudden, immense, fierce and powerful. However, the outcome will be but a tiny stop forward.

That is, these revolutions do little to further our aims as long as there still exist states (or entities of any kind) ready to wage war. He even mentions that the Xinhai revolution will require the militarisation of previous peaceful tribes in China, in order to defend the revolutionary state. Clearly, though, Landauer does not condemn self-defense. He does not, however, support it, merely tolerates it as an unfortunately necessary consequence of these revolutionary techniques, which he argues leads to very slow progress, but progress nonetheless.

This is the main thrust of anarcho-pacifism, in that it is more concerned with the means of introducing anarchism, and suggesting that these must be peaceful. Hence the majority of anarcho-pacifists support the establishment of communes and 'independent' institutions. To use Landauer's turns of phrase again, we can talk of 'the reality of socialism', which he argues must already exist if we are to challenge the state. That is, he argues that we cannot merely overthrow the state and then hope to develop a new infrastructure, whilst all the while being attacked by hostile forces and neighbouring states trying to take advantage of the power vacuum and general chaos. Instead, he suggests that we must establish our order parallel to the state, and set up our own independent agriculture, industry, schools etc., and this is an opinion held by the vast majority of anarcho-pacifists. The intention here is to undermine the state, creating a socialist reality which can expand, as a network, across state boundaries and so on. This, however, does not preclude the use of violence as a last resort in the event that these farms, factories or schools are subject to violent oppression from the state or any other entity. The 'pacifism' in 'anarcho-pacifism' refers more to an opposition to using violence to destroy the state and state institutions than it does to any question of whether or not violence can ever be used against force. This question is one which is not universally agreed upon by anarcho-pacifists, yet I doubt there would be too many who would actively oppose this violence, they just wouldn't lend their full support to it.

As I always suggest in this situation, a good essay to read concerning the tenants of anarcho-pacifism would be Tolstoy's To the Working people (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/To_The_Working_People), which gives a decent outline. This saves having to read the plethora of books, essays and articles about civil disobedience and all that stuff, because you can just cut straight to the chase, seeing how all these ideas can be tacked together by an individual. One should be warned, though, that this is not exactly an atheist text...