Pacifism

[Leftsolidarity]

What are your views on it? I personally view it as stupid.

[Imposter Marxist]

I don't think that Pacifism has the ability to change society. I hold that it never has nor will it in any large scale way. Violence is needed to overthrow the ruling class. Unfortunatly.

"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun"

[Leftsolidarity]

I completely agree.

[Optiow]

I agree with the posts above. While I would love if radical chance could be brought around without any violence, I believe that in the end some kind of violence would have to be used to confront the reactionaries (who are certainly most pacifists!).

[hatzel]

A place for indepth discussions on Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Leninism, anarchism, and other politically theoretical topics.Emphasis in original. Judging by the above posts, nobody bothered to read the brief...I know this because nobody has made even the faintest reference to anything inherent in any pacifistic practice. Nothing about civilian-based defense, nothing about Gene Sharp's development of non-violent resistance, nothing about Bart de Ligt, nothing about...well, anything. It would probably be too indepth for this thread, though, so I can't be bothered to talk about it. Google it or something, or read this (http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Geoffrey_Ostergaard__Resisting_the_Nation_State._T he_pacifist_and_anarchist_tradition.html), and then come back and make indepth posts, critiquing the ideas. Then I might care. Or something. On second thought I really don't expect I will, unfortunately...

[Imposter Marxist]

We've upset the local pacifist. O.o

[Sam_b]

Please don't post one-line nonsense here, please - there's absolutely no content in the above post.

[Leftsolidarity]

Please don't post one-line nonsense here, please - there's absolutely no content in the above post.

Nice one line comment btw

But I agree, I'd like some really conversation on this. I just didn't want to start if off because I wanted to hear other opinions on it.

If we look back in history we can always see that the old ruling classes were not thrown off by peaceful actions and protests but that they were thrown off by violent insurrection from the lower classes. I do not know of a single case contrary to this. To think that in an age of such state-directed violence that suddenly the rules of society have changed is ridiculous to me.

[Johnny Kerosene]

I am not a pacifist, but I think that pacifists and militants could work together quite well, without. Like the Pacifists could work on the (legal) political side to try to change laws and whatnot to make it easier for a revolution to take, while the militants could be ready to put the revolution into effect, and train people for when the time comes.

[Leftsolidarity]

I am not a pacifist, but I think that pacifists and militants could work together quite well, without. Like the Pacifists could work on the (legal) political side to try to change laws and whatnot to make it easier for a revolution to take, while the militants could be ready to put the revolution into effect, and train people for when the time comes.

I think that is a possibility. The only problem is is that many pacifists refuse to even cooperate with militant groups or associate with the same causes. Many times they are antagonistic towards to forwarding of a radical leftist cause because of this.

[Le Socialiste]

It has its place, however it cannot hope to achieve much in the way of revolutionary politics. The liberation of the masses will not be won through peaceful means, but by the determined militancy and will of the proletariat. The only way Capitalism will ever cede its control over the world is by forceful means. Pacificism is merely agitation with its fangs and claws torn out - it can take form, but it is no match for the policeman's club. I would argue that while pacifism may be rooted in a genuine belief in change via nonviolence, it has become little more than a form of popular "dissent"; indeed, it's the only "dissent" that the ruling-class will tolerate. It's when the people begin fighting back that the powers-that-be cry foul, and flood the media with horror stories of masked hooligans rampaging in city streets, tearing up pavement stones and raiding storefronts. The media tows the line, crying for the heads of these troublemakers, while taking an increasingly tolerant tone towards the "errant policeman" who was forced to club a demonstrating student over the head - placing the poor kid in an emergency room. Pacificism is a bourgeios-approved method of (in)action. Unless it is accompanied by forceful, determined militancy and solidarity, unless the people on the streets are unified in their moral and social consciousness, pacificism will not yield fruit.

[danyboy27]

pacifism is somehow bullshit, you cant really have nothing done in this world without a MINIMUM of offensive action.

The Labor movement wasnt born of sit-in, it was born from pissed off people who refused to work and challenged the authorities.

The Labour movement was created out of the cracked skull of hundred of thousand, million of pissed people who got out in the street and fought with all their might the scabs and the authorities in place.

that why i am not a pacifism, beccause actively resisting on the long run pay.

[Desperado]

Whilst I am not a pacifist and realise that a completely peaceful revolution is near impossible, I think we should really notice that a mostly pacifistic one is our only hope. We cannot take on the oppressors on their own ground, least of all in this day and age. Ultimately, the revolution will depend on workers, ordinary and in their masses, turning to the capitalists and saying no. Violence splits opinion and divides the working class, and is ultimately a tool of the minority. Those ideologies which deeply depend on violence are those of minorities trying to govern a society without its consent. When the mass of the workers strike the capitalist system will crumble easily enough. Some sort of "revolutionary war" is doomed to fail, either by being crushed by the oppressors superiority or if succeeding almost certainly loosing all purpose of the revolution in the first place.

Violence is sometimes necessarily required, but if we are to defeat the capitalist oppression far more important are mass movements and the building of communities. The people's revolution is not a spaghetti Western affair.


Like the Pacifists could work on the (legal) political side to try to change laws and whatnot to make it easier for a revolution to take, while the militants could be ready to put the revolution into effect, and train people for when the time comes.

Pacifism neither equate with reformism nor staying within the law.

[Desperado]

I would argue that while pacifism may be rooted in a genuine belief in change via nonviolence, it has become little more than a form of popular "dissent"; indeed, it's the only "dissent" that the ruling-class will tolerate.

Property damage is not violence, yet the ruling class most certainly don't tolerate that "dissent". Please, there's a whole load of direct action which is not inherently violent (from occupations and strikes to hacking and sabotaging) that the ruling class does not tolerate.

[hatzel]

I would argue that while pacifism may be rooted in a genuine belief in change via nonviolence, it has become little more than a form of popular "dissent"; indeed, it's the only "dissent" that the ruling-class will tolerate.There's actually a whole essay called...wait for it...Civil Disobedience. It's proven somewhat influential in the pacifist movement. The clever thing about civil disobedience is that it doesn't always seem to be tolerated by the ruling class. Not one bit. They throw people in prison for it sometimes. In China, they'll even put a bullet in your head for it. They do it because they tolerate it. Really :)

[hatzel]

Oh, and if you're going to discuss this one, you'd do well to read de la Boétie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitude). Pretty much every anarcho-pacifist that has ever existed would acknowledge that as the founding text of the current, with everything else that's been written in the last *does maths* 463 years just building on and developing that idea. So if you haven't read it, you really can't expect to have much insightful to say...

[∞]

I'm glad to see no violence fetishists posted here so far.

I believe we shouldn't generalize every situation. The majority of social change would ensue from some type of violence. However, in situations may require minimal violence, if need be. However I find Ghandism disturbing.


Gandhi
I'm willing to die for my country, but not kill for it.

Forget killing for your country, kill for your own life. Gandhi's tactics lead to alot of unnecessary deaths.

I would agree with Malcolm X


If someone sends you a dog (to kill you), you kill that dog.

[∞]

There's actually a whole essay called...wait for it...Civil Disobedience. It's proven somewhat influential in the pacifist movement. The clever thing about civil disobedience is that it doesn't always seem to be tolerated by the ruling class. Not one bit. They throw people in prison for it sometimes. In China, they'll even put a bullet in your head for it. They do it because they tolerate it. Really :)

:), Yes all the defenseless women and children brutally murdered by the British isn't so bad. I mean other than that and a million other deaths, Civil Disobediance is really successful.

[Leftsolidarity]

There's actually a whole essay called...wait for it...Civil Disobedience. It's proven somewhat influential in the pacifist movement. The clever thing about civil disobedience is that it doesn't always seem to be tolerated by the ruling class. Not one bit. They throw people in prison for it sometimes. In China, they'll even put a bullet in your head for it. They do it because they tolerate it. Really :)

I think you are both correct, it just depends on what the civil disobedience is for. MLK, Gandhi, and pacifism in general is drilled into our heads at school (still go there so I can say that), not about what was brought from it but that they were ultimately submissive and non-violent. The ruling class does tolerate civil disobedience for the most part because it is a way for us to let off steam without causing any real disruption to the capitalist system. What Kennedy said about "those who make peaceful protests impossible make revolution inevitable" (paraphrased) was not to praise freedom of speech and civil disobedience but to allow those things so the ruling class can stay in place.

[Le Socialiste]

I think you are both correct, it just depends on what the civil disobedience is for. MLK, Gandhi, and pacifism in general is drilled into our heads at school (still go there so I can say that), not about what was brought from it but that they were ultimately submissive and non-violent. The ruling class does tolerate civil disobedience for the most part because it is a way for us to let off steam without causing any real disruption to the capitalist system. What Kennedy said about "those who make peaceful protests impossible make revolution inevitable" (paraphrased) was not to praise freedom of speech and civil disobedience but to allow those things so the ruling class can stay in place.

This. This is what I am so opposed to. I rail against a pacificism that has been propagated by the ruling-classes as a means of keeping the masses subservient. Popular protest has resulted in demonstrators being herded along pre-approved city/town routes, with police guard following them the whole way. That is not a pacificism I can get behind, and I suspect most here don't wholly support it, either. What's more, these events - and whatever significance they once held - have been largely hijacked by bourgeois/faux-activist factions, resulting in a form of action that does nothing to bring the people out of their social, political, and economic malaise. I referenced media observances of masked youths rampaging down city streets to show how little it actually takes for the corporate world to blow things out of proportion. We will see these pictures and acknowledge them for what they are - products of a system that emphasizes reckless violence over concerted political action. What is needed is a masses-led revolt, one that utilizes all the tools it can get its hands on, and uses them wisely and knowledgeably. We don't need unbridled confusion; the proletariat has to rise above such acts if it is to gain momentum in achieving its goals.

Some people above me have pointed out that there are several ways in which the people can engage in nonviolent dissent that doesn't have the ruling-class's "seal of approval". That may be, and I recognize that. But these methods aren't going to be useful unless they are coordinated and based on a knowledge of class politics, strategy, and militancy. That means pushing back when pushed. Workplace/building occupations, walk-outs, general/wildcat/mass strikes, and civil disobedience is certainly worth carrying out - if the workers and people involved understand that resistance must be a necessary component. Otherwise, the ruling-classes, the corporate bosses/lawyers, lawmakers and politicians, will be able to break up the action with impunity. Pacificism has its place. There's no disputing that. What is disputable is the lengths to which it is and can be effective.

When we engage in peaceful protest today, we do so believing our actions are reminiscent of those taken by the likes of MLK (who's legacy has largely been used for political purposes in ensuring the people don't look for alternatives concerning dissent). They are anything but. As someone above me noted, the ruling-class tolerates - indeed, endorses! - this, knowing full well that in today's world people are easily placated (for now). Demonstrations, public protests, are basically the only sanctioned forms of protest available to activists and agitators today. (I do not include foregone actions such as strikes - mass/general/wildcat - walk outs, or occupations. These vary in intensity and length, so I can't really place them in the same category as public protests/demonstrations; I also believe that since these actions require varying levels of class-consciousness and militancy/solidarity, they don't properly fall under government-approved days of "herded" protest.) People attend day-long rallies, voice their disapproval, and typically head home thinking their job is done. This is the problem facing any potential movement today. Unless it is accompanied by truly revolutionary politics, awareness, and class unity, any possible movement will wither away. A militant, class-aware populace, a citizenry armed with the proper tools of dissent, can change things if it so chooses. But mainstream pacificism, with its emphasis on keeping the current exploitative/coercive power structure intact, cannot effect this change.

Now I feel like I've been rambling...sorry Rabbi K. I don't know if I've fleshed out my position adequately enough. I will try to read the link you've provided, and get back to you on what I think of it. Until then...

[El Chuncho]

I am not a true pacifist (believe that armed revolutions are necessary) but have a tremendous amount of respect for pacifism and have always admired Gandhiji.

The thing I dislike is when people portray pacifism as weak. I think it takes a lot of strength to be hit to the ground without lifting a finger to commit violence against your enemy. Strength of the will is still strength and in a revolution you need physical and mental strength to succeed.

[hatzel]

:), Yes all the defenseless women and children brutally murdered by the British isn't so bad. I mean other than that and a million other deaths, Civil Disobediance is really successful.It appears to me as though you don't know the difference between non-violent resistance and non-resistance. Also, that's nothing to do with civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is just one of a plethora of non-violent techniques used by pacifist and militant alike. If you'd thought about it, though, you would know that civil disobedience and other non-violent methods are an absolutely vital part of any revolutionary's arsenal. Even an act as simple as distributing a banned pamphlet extolling revolutionary ideas is an act of civil disobedience, and imagine the impact that could have? Any time a building is squatted, a strike called, a controversial speaker shouted down in protest, even a flyer handed out exposing some unknown truth, I see non-violent action taking place. We develop these ideas, along with hundreds of other techniques. You, on the other hand, accuse civil disobedience of being a failure, despite the fact that you will inevitably come to rely on it the minute the revolution appears over the horizon and the state tries to quell the risk by, say, imposing curfews, banning leftist meetings and publications. Are you going to roll over and let it be? Or are you going to to commit the civil disobedience you're currently disregarding out of hand?

I know plenty of leftists who are very keen to learn more about non-violent action, even if they are themselves militant, because they acknowledge the potential of non-violent resistance, and the valuable part it can play in their arsenal. It is a weapon; for us, it is the primary weapon, for them, it is complimentary. There are others (and your comment appears to have put you in that camp) who totally disregard it as anything of any worth. Perhaps due to ignorance, perhaps due to hostility, perhaps because you just can't be bothered to learn about the many and varied techniques. This, though, leaves you with a significantly less harmful weapon than you could have, if you implemented non-violent action into your arsenal. And who is it that develops these non-violent methods to bring about the end of the state if it isn't us pacifists?

El Chuncho is...approaching the point, as is Le Socialiste. I'll copy-paste this short piece, Correcting common misconceptions about nonviolent action, as I feel there are a few of us here who could learn from it:

What nonviolent action is

Nonviolent action is a technique of socio-political action for applying power in a conflict without the use of physical violence. Nonviolent action may involve acts of omission — that is, people may refuse to perform acts that they usually perform, are expected by custom to perform, or are required by law or regulation to perform; acts of commission — that is, people may perform acts that they do not usually perform, are not expected by custom to perform, or are forbidden to preform; or a combination of the two. As a technique, therefore, nonviolent action is not passive. It is not inaction. It is action that is nonviolent.

These acts comprise a multitude of specific methods of action or "nonviolent weapons." Nearly two hundred have been identified to date, and without doubt, scores more already exist or will emerge in future conflicts. Three broad classes of nonviolent methods exist: nonviolent protest and persuasion, noncooperation, and nonviolent intervention.

Nonviolent action provides a way to wield power in order to achieve objectives and to sanction opponents without the use of physical violence. Overwhelmingly, nonviolent action is group or mass action. While certain forms of this technique, especially the symbolic methods, may be regarded as efforts to persuade by action, the other forms, especially those of noncooperation, may, if practiced by large numbers, coerce opponents.

Whatever the issue and scale of the conflict, nonviolent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission, and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict without violence. Nonviolent action is not an attempt to avoid conflict. It is one response to the problem of how to wield power effectively.




What nonviolent action isn’t

1) Nonviolent action has nothing to do with passivity, submissiveness, and cowardice; just as in violent action, these must first be rejected and overcome.

2) Nonviolent action is not to be equated with verbal or purely psychological persuasion, although it may use action to induce psychological pressures for attitude change; nonviolent action, instead of words, is a sanction and a technique of struggle involving the use of social, economic, and political power, and the matching of forces in conflict.

3) Nonviolent action does not depend on the assumption that people are inherently “good”; the potentialities of people for both “good” and “evil” are recognized, including the extremes of cruelty and inhumanity.

4) People using nonviolent action do not have to be pacifists or saints; nonviolent action has been predominantly and successfully practiced by “ordinary” people.

5) Success with nonviolent action does not require (though it may be helped by) shared standards and principles, a high degree of community of interest, or a high degree of psychological closeness between the contending groups; this is because when efforts to produce voluntary change fail, coercive nonviolent measures may be employed.

6) Nonviolent action is at least as much of a Western phenomenon as an Eastern one; indeed, it is probably more Western, if one takes into account the widespread use of strikes and boycotts in the labor movement and the noncooperation struggles of subordinated nationalities.

7) In nonviolent action there is no assumption that the opponent will refrain from using violence against nonviolent actionists; the technique is designed to operate against violence when necessary.

8) There is nothing in nonviolent action to prevent it from being used for both “good” and “bad” causes, although the social consequences of its use for a “bad” cause may differ considerably from the consequences of violence used for the same cause.

9) Nonviolent action is not limited to domestic conflicts within a democratic system; it has been widely used against dictatorial regimes, foreign occupations, and even against totalitarian systems.

10) Nonviolent action does not always take longer to produce victory than violent struggle would. In a variety of cases nonviolent struggle has won objectives in a very short time — in as little as a few days. The time taken to achieve victory depends on diverse factors — primarily on the strength of the nonviolent actionists.

[Queercommie Girl]

Absolute pacifism is of course ridiculous for a Marxist revolutionary, but I am a "general pacifist" in the sense that I do not believe violence is an end in itself or an intrinsically positive thing, but only a "necessary evil". (Violence is literally "evil" but sometimes we have no choice but to act evilly - I don't believe in absolute "good" and "evil" of course)

I don't like violence, but I will not hesitate to utilise violence when necessary in a revolutionary situation, or to combat reactionaries, oppressors and imperialists.

However, I do expect a genuine communist society to be generally pacifist, but that's something that has to be fought for.

As an old Chinese saying goes (rather dialectically): The ultimate goal of all warfare is perpetual peace. Or as Mao Zedong once said: The ultimate goal of revolutionary warfare is to end all wars.

[Queercommie Girl]

The thing I dislike is when people portray pacifism as weak. I think it takes a lot of strength to be hit to the ground without lifting a finger to commit violence against your enemy. Strength of the will is still strength and in a revolution you need physical and mental strength to succeed.


Absolute pacifism isn't really "weak", but it can often be strategically stupid.

Basically in many real political situations, if you adopt an absolute pacifist line, then you simply lose, and history is always written by the victors.

I am an utilitarian who cares more about genuine sound political strategies to achieve political and ideological victory than some kind of abstract sense of "strength" or "honour", whether pacifist or not.

The idea of serious politics is to win, not to "show-off" how good, honourable or strong you are by posturing around.

Pacifism is good when it is a good strategic choice, it is bad when it is a bad strategic choice.

[Queercommie Girl]

It appears to me as though you don't know the difference between non-violent resistance and non-resistance. Also, that's nothing to do with civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is just one of a plethora of non-violent techniques used by pacifist and militant alike. If you'd thought about it, though, you would know that civil disobedience and other non-violent methods are an absolutely vital part of any revolutionary's arsenal. Even an act as simple as distributing a banned pamphlet extolling revolutionary ideas is an act of civil disobedience, and imagine the impact that could have? Any time a building is squatted, a strike called, a controversial speaker shouted down in protest, even a flyer handed out exposing some unknown truth, I see non-violent action taking place. We develop these ideas, along with hundreds of other techniques. You, on the other hand, accuse civil disobedience of being a failure, despite the fact that you will inevitably come to rely on it the minute the revolution appears over the horizon and the state tries to quell the risk by, say, imposing curfews, banning leftist meetings and publications. Are you going to roll over and let it be? Or are you going to to commit the civil disobedience you're currently disregarding out of hand?

I know plenty of leftists who are very keen to learn more about non-violent action, even if they are themselves militant, because they acknowledge the potential of non-violent resistance, and the valuable part it can play in their arsenal. It is a weapon; for us, it is the primary weapon, for them, it is complimentary. There are others (and your comment appears to have put you in that camp) who totally disregard it as anything of any worth. Perhaps due to ignorance, perhaps due to hostility, perhaps because you just can't be bothered to learn about the many and varied techniques. This, though, leaves you with a significantly less harmful weapon than you could have, if you implemented non-violent action into your arsenal. And who is it that develops these non-violent methods to bring about the end of the state if it isn't us pacifists?

El Chuncho is...approaching the point, as is Le Socialiste. I'll copy-paste this short piece, Correcting common misconceptions about nonviolent action, as I feel there are a few of us here who could learn from it:

What nonviolent action is

Nonviolent action is a technique of socio-political action for applying power in a conflict without the use of physical violence. Nonviolent action may involve acts of omission — that is, people may refuse to perform acts that they usually perform, are expected by custom to perform, or are required by law or regulation to perform; acts of commission — that is, people may perform acts that they do not usually perform, are not expected by custom to perform, or are forbidden to preform; or a combination of the two. As a technique, therefore, nonviolent action is not passive. It is not inaction. It is action that is nonviolent.

These acts comprise a multitude of specific methods of action or "nonviolent weapons." Nearly two hundred have been identified to date, and without doubt, scores more already exist or will emerge in future conflicts. Three broad classes of nonviolent methods exist: nonviolent protest and persuasion, noncooperation, and nonviolent intervention.

Nonviolent action provides a way to wield power in order to achieve objectives and to sanction opponents without the use of physical violence. Overwhelmingly, nonviolent action is group or mass action. While certain forms of this technique, especially the symbolic methods, may be regarded as efforts to persuade by action, the other forms, especially those of noncooperation, may, if practiced by large numbers, coerce opponents.

Whatever the issue and scale of the conflict, nonviolent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission, and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict without violence. Nonviolent action is not an attempt to avoid conflict. It is one response to the problem of how to wield power effectively.




What nonviolent action isn’t

1) Nonviolent action has nothing to do with passivity, submissiveness, and cowardice; just as in violent action, these must first be rejected and overcome.

2) Nonviolent action is not to be equated with verbal or purely psychological persuasion, although it may use action to induce psychological pressures for attitude change; nonviolent action, instead of words, is a sanction and a technique of struggle involving the use of social, economic, and political power, and the matching of forces in conflict.

3) Nonviolent action does not depend on the assumption that people are inherently “good”; the potentialities of people for both “good” and “evil” are recognized, including the extremes of cruelty and inhumanity.

4) People using nonviolent action do not have to be pacifists or saints; nonviolent action has been predominantly and successfully practiced by “ordinary” people.

5) Success with nonviolent action does not require (though it may be helped by) shared standards and principles, a high degree of community of interest, or a high degree of psychological closeness between the contending groups; this is because when efforts to produce voluntary change fail, coercive nonviolent measures may be employed.

6) Nonviolent action is at least as much of a Western phenomenon as an Eastern one; indeed, it is probably more Western, if one takes into account the widespread use of strikes and boycotts in the labor movement and the noncooperation struggles of subordinated nationalities.

7) In nonviolent action there is no assumption that the opponent will refrain from using violence against nonviolent actionists; the technique is designed to operate against violence when necessary.

8) There is nothing in nonviolent action to prevent it from being used for both “good” and “bad” causes, although the social consequences of its use for a “bad” cause may differ considerably from the consequences of violence used for the same cause.

9) Nonviolent action is not limited to domestic conflicts within a democratic system; it has been widely used against dictatorial regimes, foreign occupations, and even against totalitarian systems.

10) Nonviolent action does not always take longer to produce victory than violent struggle would. In a variety of cases nonviolent struggle has won objectives in a very short time — in as little as a few days. The time taken to achieve victory depends on diverse factors — primarily on the strength of the nonviolent actionists.

Non-violent civil disobedience has its uses strategically speaking certainly, and it would be foolish to completely write it off by depicting it as "weak" or something.

But good luck if you really think non-violent civil disobedience by itself is sufficient to bring down the massive edifice of capitalism and imperialism in the world today...

[Sword and Shield]

Pacifism against imperialist wars is good. Pacifism as an absolute is bad. Sometimes you just have to fight for justice and freedom. However, I do think the Western left, especially anarchists, have a propensity for thoughtless violence that accomplishes nothing or sometimes makes things worse for the working class..

[Leftsolidarity]

Pacifism against imperialist wars is good.

Why is it good? Imperialist wars are the worst of all.

[Leftsolidarity]

I am not a true pacifist (believe that armed revolutions are necessary) but have a tremendous amount of respect for pacifism and have always admired Gandhiji.

The thing I dislike is when people portray pacifism as weak. I think it takes a lot of strength to be hit to the ground without lifting a finger to commit violence against your enemy. Strength of the will is still strength and in a revolution you need physical and mental strength to succeed.

I dislike Gandhi a lot for many different reasons. It is not "strong" or "honorable" to not use violence against your enemy. It is stupid and self-glorifying, it is all just to feel good about yourself even if you lose. We are humans in a physical world where we sometimes need to defend ourselves by physical means, to deny these means is foolish and only to glorify oneself.

[Sword and Shield]

Why is it good? Imperialist wars are the worst of all.

Sorry I meant like "pacifists" in America opposing imperialist wars, as opposed to supporting them. I guess my point is that people within an imperialist country should support pacifism to prevent their country from going to war.

[El Chuncho]

Absolute pacifism isn't really "weak", but it can often be strategically stupid.

Agreed.




I am an utilitarian who cares more about genuine sound political strategies to achieve political and ideological victory than some kind of abstract sense of "strength" or "honour", whether pacifist or not.

Without strength, aka strength of conviction, strength of ideology, we cannot succeed. Strength may seem ''abstract'' but it isn't. I am not talking about macho or excessively violent forms of strength, but without strength your sound political strategies will crumble, because you would not have the strength to carry them or share them with others.


The idea of serious politics is to win, not to "show-off" how good, honourable or strong you are by posturing around.

Indeed, but having strength of conviction, or of propaganda (which is not, contrary to popular belief, untrue, it can be a powerful way of pointing a point across) and even of arms (in warfare) is not ''posturing'', but a valid part of any real strategy. If there is no strength of planning, for instance, you would have no strong strategy to use.


Pacifism is good when it is a good strategic choice, it is bad when it is a bad strategic choice.

Agreed.

[Queercommie Girl]

Without strength, aka strength of conviction, strength of ideology, we cannot succeed. Strength may seem ''abstract'' but it isn't. I am not talking about macho or excessively violent forms of strength, but without strength your sound political strategies will crumble, because you would not have the strength to carry them or share them with others.

Indeed, but having strength of conviction, or of propaganda (which is not, contrary to popular belief, untrue, it can be a powerful way of pointing a point across) and even of arms (in warfare) is not ''posturing'', but a valid part of any real strategy. If there is no strength of planning, for instance, you would have no strong strategy to use.


Well, obviously I also appreciate the strategic importance of strength in many contexts. ;)

[El Chuncho]

I dislike Gandhi a lot for many different reasons. It is not "strong" or "honorable" to not use violence against your enemy.

It takes a lot of strength (and please not that ''strength'' and ''strong'' are valid words in this context, so talking about them as if they are entirely abstract is a little foolish) to not fight back against an enemy, and is also a good propaganda tool to use against your enemy.


It is stupid and self-glorifying, it is all just to feel good about yourself even if you lose.

I think it is quite foolish and revisionist to claim that this was Gandhi's motivation, and ignores the Hindu cultural context of them. Gandhi was inspired by the Indian concept (which was especially prevalent in India at the time of Ashoka) of ahimsa, non-violence, which was popular with many Vaishnava Hindus like Gandhi, and the need for Indian independance. His influence to non-violence was more likely informed by his beliefs and interpretations of the Gita rather than the need to ''feel good about [himself] even if [he] [lost]''.

He starved himself not because he wanted to feel great and superior, but because he felt that violence between the Muslims and Hindus was wrong and very un-Hindu (being quite devout Vaishnava). He also campaigned for the Dalit ''caste'' (not really a caste, actually, as they fell outside of the caste system). Was that for self-glorification too?


We are humans in a physical world where we sometimes need to defend ourselves by physical means, to deny these means is foolish and only to glorify oneself.

You have to learn that many people just do not want to kill other human beings or creatures (especially Jains and many Buddhists and Hindus) and their actions are not motivated by glorification. I am cynical and bitter, and totally agree with violent revolution, but I am not foolish enough to believe that people who disagree with with my stance of believing in violent revolution are motivated by selfish, self-glorifying means. They could easily claim that those who want who agree with violence merely do so because they just wish to take lives and want to seem physically powerful. Wouldn't you agree with me that that is a ridiculous opinion? Now reverse that to be about pacifism.

You claim just struck me as culturally insensitive (without meaning to be, I'll grant you) and a misunderstanding of the Indian philosophies of ahimsa (non-violence to all living creatures) and satyagraha (which ahimsa plays a big part of). Hindus traditionally believe that all living creatures are part of the whole, and Buddhists believe that all living creatures have souls too, which is why ahimsa has had a large following throughout Indian history; and influenced Martin Luther King Jr. Was Martin Luther King Jr. just fighting for equality with pacifism because he was influenced by self-glorification? Though I am not a true pacifist (hence voting no in the poll) I reject that notion.

[hatzel]

But good luck if you really think non-violent civil disobedience by itself is sufficient to bring down the massive edifice of capitalism and imperialism in the world today...I'll just point out that I wasn't the one who equated civil disobedience and non-violent resistance. Civil disobedience is just one of countless 'categories' of non-violent action at our disposal. Nobody has claimed civil disobedience will achieve anything by itself, except for those unfamiliar with the countless other methods, who have tried to reduce the entire system to one point. Trying to bring down capitalism and the state with civil disobedience alone would be like trying to win a war with handguns alone. Of course commanders also use artillery, the air force, the navy, all that kind of stuff. And, to win the war, all of these military options have to be applied, as and when they are appropriate, according to some overarching strategy. The same applies with non-violent resistance, it's just the weapons and the battlefield which are different...

[Leftsolidarity]

You claim just struck me as culturally insensitive (without meaning to be, I'll grant you) and a misunderstanding of the Indian philosophies of ahimsa (non-violence to all living creatures) and satyagraha (which ahimsa plays a big part of). Hindus traditionally believe that all living creatures are part of the whole, and Buddhists believe that all living creatures have souls too, which is why ahimsa has had a large following throughout Indian history; and influenced Martin Luther King Jr. Was Martin Luther King Jr. just fighting for equality with pacifism because he was influenced by self-glorification? Though I am not a true pacifist (hence voting no in the poll) I reject that notion.

I wasn't speaking of Gandhi at that point. I know he did it for different reasons (mostly) but I was speaking about the general pacifist. I completely understand not wanting to hurt or kill others, I used to be a pacifist and have been a vegetarian for many years.

[El Chuncho]

I wasn't speaking of Gandhi at that point. I know he did it for different reasons (mostly) but I was speaking about the general pacifist. I completely understand not wanting to hurt or kill others, I used to be a pacifist and have been a vegetarian for many years.

OK, but I would say that most really extreme pacifists are influenced by a ''noble'' reason rather than for self-glorification (which I associate with the more ''freely'' pacifistic). Their stance might be naive, but I think most of their hearts are in the right place...and again a great many are New Agers (who are very influenced by Dharmic religions) or followers of Dharmic religions, and thus they have philosophical beliefs that can make pacifism more preferable. I greatly admire them and, though many would say that I am a ''Stalinist'' or a dictator fetishist (unjustly, in my opinion), I am motivated more by my love of my fellow man. If pacifism worked, I would be a hardcore pacifist, as I would much rather not kill or hurt anyone*; but it rarely works, despite the best efforts of pacifists.

*I believe that humans should only fight when they need to. It is why I do not kill weaker creatures, and have been a vegetarian for years.

[Leftsolidarity]

I agree with you. I think your taking my comments to antagonistically, I think they think they are doing it for noble reasons but I view it as simple self-glorification. I do view them as fellow comrades as long as they do not hinder the process by their refusal to cooperate.

[hatzel]

I think they think they are doing it for noble reasons but I view it as simple self-glorificationHow is this different from absolutely everybody on the left? Every single person who has ever been in any socialist organisation could be accused of thinking they are doing it for a noble cause, but really just doing it for self-glorification. I have noticed plenty of people on this website who are under some impression that the left is the compassionate and kind side, whilst the right is the selfish side. One could claim that such people are only involved in leftist politics so that they can say 'hey, look at me, look at how much I care about humanity!' But I'm not accusing anybody of doing that...so why are you? What's your justification?

Two other points...

a) I think it's interesting that everybody always talks about Gandhi in these discussions. His ideas are in many cases outdated, and have been developed beyond all recognition. Ideas develop with time, and we don't get stuck in the past. We have countless case studies of non-violent resistance and non-violent revolution in the decades since Gandhi, all of which we can study to notice where they were strong, and where they fell down. To use the military analogy again...military strategists study historical battles, to develop their tactics. We study historical non-violent battles, to develop our tactics.

b) Has anybody considered the reasons for anarcho-pacifism beyond just saying 'yo yo, them pacifists just wanna look all good and are like too scared or something to start killing people!'? Sure, many anarcho-pacifists happen to be Christian anarchists, so the whole killing people idea isn't all that appealing, but there are plenty who aren't. For some of us, it's just being consistent with anarchist principles. That is to say, being opposed to authority and the like inevitably requires being opposed to military force, which is probably the strongest and most destructive realisation of authority. Not complaining at other anarchists, because we all have our own ideas, some are more communal, some are more individualist, all that stuff, and I accept that. Despite that, from my personal idea of what it means to be an anarchist, I can assure you that there is nothing anarchistic about the use of violence. As Bart de Ligt said, 'the more violence, the less revolution'...

[Leftsolidarity]

a) I think it's interesting that everybody always talks about Gandhi in these discussions. His ideas are in many cases outdated, and have been developed beyond all recognition. Ideas develop with time, and we don't get stuck in the past. We have countless case studies of non-violent resistance and non-violent revolution in the decades since Gandhi, all of which we can study to notice where they were strong, and where they fell down. To use the military analogy again...military strategists study historical battles, to develop their tactics. We study historical non-violent battles, to develop our tactics.

b) Has anybody considered the reasons for anarcho-pacifism beyond just saying 'yo yo, them pacifists just wanna look all good and are like too scared or something to start killing people!'? Sure, many anarcho-pacifists happen to be Christian anarchists, so the whole killing people idea isn't all that appealing, but there are plenty who aren't. For some of us, it's just being consistent with anarchist principles. That is to say, being opposed to authority and the like inevitably requires being opposed to military force, which is probably the strongest and most destructive realisation of authority. Not complaining at other anarchists, because we all have our own ideas, some are more communal, some are more individualist, all that stuff, and I accept that. Despite that, from my personal idea of what it means to be an anarchist, I can assure you that there is nothing anarchistic about the use of violence. As Bart de Ligt said, 'the more violence, the less revolution'...

What are your countless examples of non-violent revolution? Non-violence is not a core principle of anarchism, while it might to you it is not in the ideology.

[El Chuncho]

How is this different from absolutely everybody on the left? Every single person who has ever been in any socialist organisation could be accused of thinking they are doing it for a noble cause, but really just doing it for self-glorification. I have noticed plenty of people on this website who are under some impression that the left is the compassionate and kind side, whilst the right is the selfish side. One could claim that such people are only involved in leftist politics so that they can say 'hey, look at me, look at how much I care about humanity!'

I totally agree, and have made this point a few times. Some leftists are, sadly, just ''scenesters''. They are the sort of people who actually wear charity badges that they get given for making donations.



a) I think it's interesting that everybody always talks about Gandhi in these discussions. His ideas are in many cases outdated, and have been developed beyond all recognition. Ideas develop with time, and we don't get stuck in the past. We have countless case studies of non-violent resistance and non-violent revolution in the decades since Gandhi, all of which we can study to notice where they were strong, and where they fell down. To use the military analogy again...military strategists study historical battles, to develop their tactics. We study historical non-violent battles, to develop our tactics.



I think that so many people talk about Gandhi because, good or bad, he is the most famous and important proponent of non-violence (and Satyagraha, which I will come to in a minute). His ideas are partly outdated, but most of the main pacifists since then have been inspired by his ideas and teachings. Martin Luther King Jr. was inspired by him, Nelson Mandela was inspired by him, Aung San Suu Kyi was inspired by Gandhi, Benigno Aquino Jr. was inspired by Gandhi and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan was inspired by Gandhi. Infact Gandhians still exist, the same as many other movements (Marx might be seen as outdated by some, but still has followers to this day, too).

[hatzel]

What are your countless examples of non-violent revolution?

You're a Marxist (as far as I can see), you should know that the whole Soviet Union fell on the back on non-violent revolution :tt2: Never heard of the Singing Revolution, or the Velvet Revolution? And how about the recent events in Egypt, which were predominantly non-violent? Didn't Milošević fall thanks to the equally non-violent Bulldozer Revolution? The Colour Revolutions have all been non-violent, too. Or we could look to Latin American, how about Carlos Ibáñez del Campo, Gerardo Machado, Maximiliano Hernández Martínez, Jorge Ubico, Elie Lescot, Arnulfo Arias, Paul Magloire, Joseph Nemours Pierre-Louis, Frank Sylvain, Gustavo Rojas Pinilla and Joaquín Balaguer, all of whom fell on the back of civic strikes? I know it's hardly the most 'progressive' example, but the current regime in Iran was installed by a vastly popular non-violent revolution. To quote from Wikipedia, "[f]rom 1966 to 1999 nonviolent civic resistance has played a critical role in 50 of 67 transitions from authoritarianism"...do I need to go on? Any of the above could potentially have resulted in any number of subsequent regimes being introduced, included socialism, had it been the desire of the people.


Non-violence is not a core principle of anarchism, while it might to you it is not in the ideology.I didn't say it was, did I? I also didn't realise you were an expert on the anarchist 'ideology'. We're not Marxist-Leninists or whatever. We don't even have a set ideology. We have a great number of distinct tendencies and ideas, all under the umbrella of 'anarchism'. Non-violence is, however, a core principle of anarcho-pacifism (that's a tendency within anarchism, if you didn't know) based on, as I said, the idea that violence is an authoritarian act, which is un-anarchistic. As I said, not all anarchists agree. Just like there are anarchists who seek to protect private property, and those who oppose it, and there are some who support a communist economy, or a collectivist economy, or a mutualist economy, or anything else. I repeat, we don't have some set dogma. I personally (and this is just me, not anarchists as a whole, as I acknowledged in my last post, and in this post, but it seems I have to repeat it over and over again, so that you'll pay attention. IT'S JUST ME!!!) consider violence an act of authority over the individual. This being illegitimate and un-anarchistic. Hence we develop theories and systems that we believe could implement anarchism without such a need for violence. Some people claim that the ends justify the means, explaining how they can partake in authoritative acts in order to achieve liberty. In this case, I do actually agree with Gandhi (as well as the countless others who have expressed the same sentiment; I actually read it first in Landauer, but the formulation I will give is Gandhi's), that the means are the ends in the making. That is to say, for me, peace cannot be built on war. Liberty cannot be built in authority. Hence, non-violence is perfectly in keeping with anarchism, which is not, and never will be, some dogmatic ideology, with these or those particularities set in stone for all eternity. Unlike some other tendencies represented on this site :rolleyes:

[Leftsolidarity]

I didn't say it was, did I? I also didn't realise you were an expert on the anarchist 'ideology'. We're not Marxist-Leninists or whatever. We don't even have a set ideology.

I never said I was an expert on anarchism but I was an anarchist for quite a long time. I am not a Marxist-Leninist either btw. Anarchism is a set ideology even though their are variations on it.

Also, I don't believe that the Soviet Union feel because of non-violent protests at all and I've never heard of someone thinking that. The recent events in Egypt happened the way they did because of the militant actions of the workers. I don't know of every example you have given but because of your main 2 I have a feeling that they aren't very good examples.

[hatzel]

Anarchism is a set ideology even though their are variations on it.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but that makes no sense. A set ideology cannot have variation. That is the very nature of a set ideology. What you meant to say is that anarchism is a group of tendencies with particular ideas held in common.

But why do I even bother writing all this? I try to explain my position in detail, and demonstrate the justification (that being the point of the theory section), and you just make a vague response to one line. I've asked you to justify your standpoint on at least one occasion, probably more, and still you flagrantly fail to do so. Why is that?


I don't believe that the Soviet Union feel because of non-violent protests at all and I've never heard of someone thinking that.
One of the questions I asked you was 'never heard of the Singing Revolution?' You have just answered no. But please, go to the Baltic countries, ask them how exactly they managed to bring the Soviet occupation to an end. Was it with a war of independence? No, no it wasn't. It was from the right action at the right time, right the right circumstances in place, as is the case with any such change. They'll tell you about the Singing Revolution, and the Baltic Way, and all manner of other undertakings, and about how they eventually found themselves able to merely declare their independence. Just like that. If they're really clever they'll even tell you about the August Putsch, the failure of which was absolutely fundamental to the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union. And guess what prevented that? I suggest you read a book about it (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/CivilResistanceintheEastEuropeanandSovietRevolutio ns.pdf) or something...


The recent events in Egypt happened the way they did because of the militant actions of the workers.

Oh, I must have missed that bit. Because, you know, I just looked on Wikipedia, and under the 'deaths' section is says '846 (including at least 135 protesters, 12 policemen, 12 escaped prisoners, and one prison chief)'. Last time I checked, dictatorships rarely fall because 12 policemen and 1 prison chief were killed. There must have been something else going on there, but I can't for the life of me think what it was. Do you, per chance, have any idea? Perhaps this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12522848) will give us a clue...

[Leftsolidarity]

So is Marxism not a set ideology because it has variations? Every ideology has variations on it but it doesn't mean it is not a set ideology.

Sorry if I don't have the time like you obviously do, to sit and write a big response to everything you say.

I just do not believe (along with many others) that the USSR fell because a peaceful protests. There were MANY other factors at play that caused it to fall and cannot at all be attributed solely to peaceful protests.

Just because there were few deaths does not mean that there wasn't militant actions carried out by the workers. They shut down the workplaces and physically fought off the police (even if they didn't kill them). Do you seriously think that a dictator fell because a lot of people sat in a street for a week or so?:confused:

[Summerspeaker]

That is to say, for me, peace cannot be built on war. Liberty cannot be built in authority.

This roughly matches my thoughts, though I would remove the absolute and only claim that violence lends itself to authoritarianism in general.

[Sickle-A]

No, I pray to the gods of Propaganda of the Deed.

[Leftsolidarity]

No, I pray to the gods of Propaganda of the Deed.

Propaganda of the deed is a foolish tactic that has been shown time and time again to not work. It is pure adventurism and leads to failure.

[progressive_lefty]

Pacifist.

I take a lot from Ghandi and Martin Luther King. I think it comes from the mentality that 'while their consciences rot away as a result of their brutal actions, let's maintain our composure'. Obviously there are situations where self-defense is necessary. I think it's necessary to remember that someone like Malcolm X advocated violence but did not exactly take the path of the Black Panther party.

[hatzel]

I just do not believe (along with many others) that the USSR fell because a peaceful protests. There were MANY other factors at play that caused it to fall and cannot at all be attributed solely to peaceful protests.

Nobody claimed it could be attributed solely to peaceful action. If you'd read anything, you'd know that. How did the USSR come into being in the first place? Why didn't the attempts at revolution work in 1905, whilst it did in 1917? Like any revolution, the timing is important, you can't just throw any old revolution out into the world tomorrow and expect it to work. So the First World War was a factor at play in the establishment of the Soviet Union, as various economic concerns and so on were a factor in its fall. Many and countless factors, and the factors in play at that time made it possible for the Baltic countries to liberate themselves through civil resistance.


Just because there were few deaths does not mean that there wasn't militant actions carried out by the workers. They shut down the workplaces and physically fought off the police (even if they didn't kill them). Do you seriously think that a dictator fell because a lot of people sat in a street for a week or so?And now we can see that you have literally no idea what we're talking about. This is what you just said, I'll reword it for you in more generalised terms:


It wasn't just civil resistance. For example, people did this act of civil resistance. Do you really think it was just because of this other act of civil resistance?You've clearly not been paying any attention to anything that's been said through all this discussion, and know next to nothing about non-violent resistance. Not long ago I was saying "I wasn't the one who equated civil disobedience and non-violent resistance. Civil disobedience is just one of countless 'categories' of non-violent action at our disposal." Now, I've found somebody who clearly thinks that I'm talking about protests and nothing else. Again: no! Even though you keep saying 'I don't believe it was just because of peaceful protests', doesn't mean I'm talking about protests alone. Shutting down workplaces is an act of civil resistance!

As you obviously don't know what we're even discussing, I'm calling it a day there. End of discussion. That's an act of social disobedience, by the way, one of the many weapons at my disposal :tt2:

[Cody_2ZZ]

I consider myself a Pacifist.

The only thing the ruling class knows, especially in the Unites States, is violence. They have virtually unlimited resources and the chances of a violent proletariat actually overthrowing the ruling class is slim. In my opinion, all the violent leftist revolutions in history seem to ultimately result in more oppression, even if it's a different form of oppression. Nonviolence seems like the way to go to me.

[Rjevan]

Sorry, I'm not following you or something, just reading and approving your posts.

Same problem as in your thread in Learning: you basically contradict your conclusion by your own presupposition. If "the only thing the ruling class knows is violence" and they "have virtually unlimited resources" how is nonviolence supposed to get us anywhere? Do you think the ruling class wouldn't use violence against peaceful protestors? A quick look at history - even at very recent and contemporary events! - shows the opposite.

[Cody_2ZZ]

No, no, I'm glad you're approving my posts haha I know the new guy can be a little annoying since I'm continually coming in during the middle of a conversation. I appreciate your patience.

In response to your post, I feel that you misunderstand my point. I totally believe that the ruling class would surely use violence against the proletariat. What I'm saying is that the proletariat will never defeat the ruling class at its own game. If enough support can be garnished through nonviolent means, the people will not stand for violent governmental retaliation. Ultimately, a violent clash between the proletariat and ruling class may be unavoidable.
What I disagree with is the advocacy of violence as the first choice. I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear haha my brain's a little fried from writing a bunch of papers. :blink:

[Rjevan]

No need to apologize, comrade! You're not annoying and this forum is here to express our opinions and discuss, so nobody can blame you for being new and joining conversations. ;)

It seems we indeed have a misunderstanding here. Pacifism means to me that you condemn and reject violence all-out and therefore you'd have to be opposed to a violent overthrow of capitalism and seizure of power. But revolutionary leftists don't advocate "violence as the first choice" or call for blood baths at every occassion, otherwise we'd have to boycott all peaceful demonstrations, rallies, participation in elections and the like.

Of course the people start protesting peacefully, they always did before every revolution in history. It's not like "the mob" wakes up one day and decides to slaughter away because some "bloodthirsty communist" told them to do so. But the response to their peaceful demands, petitions and appeals was always violence and we should be aware of that and prepare ourselves and those protesting. The idea is, just like you said, that the ruling class will inevitably use violence sooner or later, that a violent clash indeed is unavoidable and that we have to respond with violence as the only possible means to overthrow capitalism instead of practicing "turn to him the other cheek". Therefore a pacifist position, condemning all violence as inherently wrong and promotong nonviolence as the only possible way is reactionary and harmful as it plays into the hands of those who use violence most readily, the ruling class.

[hatzel]

The idea is, just like you said, that the ruling class will inevitably use violence sooner or later, that a violent clash indeed is unavoidable and that we have to respond with violence as the only possible means to overthrow capitalism instead of practicing "turn to him the other cheek". Therefore a pacifist position, condemning all violence as inherently wrong and promotong nonviolence as the only possible way is reactionary and harmful as it plays into the hands of those who use violence most readily, the ruling class.

I'll just quote from the same Correcting common misconceptions about nonviolent action I quoted on the last page.


In nonviolent action there is no assumption that the opponent will refrain from using violence against nonviolent actionists; the technique is designed to operate against violence when necessary.

It's not at all accurate to claim that violence must always be met with violence, and that failing to do so is reactionary. Considering you yourself claimed that it is the ruling class which uses violence most readily, it seems strange to then advocate trying to take them on at their own game, so to speak, as the only possible option. As was quoted in an article I linked to a few posts ago, '[a]s soon as you choose to fight with violence you're choosing to fight against your opponent's best weapons and you have to be smarter than that'; it's certainly no more 'reactionary' to advocate taking on the state using our own strengths, that is to say civil resistance, than it is to advocate trying to match their strengths, in the process relenting to play by their rules. I fail to see how the former constitutes playing into the hands of the ruling class, whilst the latter doesn't, sorry...

EDIT: by the way, I'm not claiming that either are reactionary. Both paths are equally revolutionary, albeit it in different ways.

[Leftsolidarity]

Nobody claimed it could be attributed solely to peaceful action. If you'd read anything, you'd know that. How did the USSR come into being in the first place? Why didn't the attempts at revolution work in 1905, whilst it did in 1917? Like any revolution, the timing is important, you can't just throw any old revolution out into the world tomorrow and expect it to work. So the First World War was a factor at play in the establishment of the Soviet Union, as various economic concerns and so on were a factor in its fall. Many and countless factors, and the factors in play at that time made it possible for the Baltic countries to liberate themselves through civil resistance.

And now we can see that you have literally no idea what we're talking about. This is what you just said, I'll reword it for you in more generalised terms:

You've clearly not been paying any attention to anything that's been said through all this discussion, and know next to nothing about non-violent resistance. Not long ago I was saying "I wasn't the one who equated civil disobedience and non-violent resistance. Civil disobedience is just one of countless 'categories' of non-violent action at our disposal." Now, I've found somebody who clearly thinks that I'm talking about protests and nothing else. Again: no! Even though you keep saying 'I don't believe it was just because of peaceful protests', doesn't mean I'm talking about protests alone. Shutting down workplaces is an act of civil resistance!

As you obviously don't know what we're even discussing, I'm calling it a day there. End of discussion. That's an act of social disobedience, by the way, one of the many weapons at my disposal :tt2:

I view physically fighting as militant. If you want to call that something else that's fine with me.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I agree it as a moral stupid. I'm all about peace but I believe for world peace to happen we need world revolution which would be violent

[Leftsolidarity]

Pacifist.

I take a lot from Ghandi and Martin Luther King. I think it comes from the mentality that 'while their consciences rot away as a result of their brutal actions, let's maintain our composure'. Obviously there are situations where self-defense is necessary. I think it's necessary to remember that someone like Malcolm X advocated violence but did not exactly take the path of the Black Panther party.

I do not completely understand. Are you denouncing the BPP?