Pacifism

[Hate Is Art]

Whats everyones opinions of Pacifism? I think it is quite admirable and courageous if a bit stupid.

"Pacifism Killed Us All
For The Tourists on the Berlin Wall"

I find it funny how people on this forum can mock pacifism whilst doing nothing at all. What is braver; fighting a soldier, armed to the nines or running at a soldier armed with nothing but a sharp wit and a quick tongue? (if that)

[The Children of the Revolution]

Whats everyones opinions of Pacifism? I think it is quite admirable and courageous if a bit stupid.


Stupid? How so? Pacifism is wonderful; I support it totally. Using force only "legitimises" (read: gives others an excuse) the use of the same against you - and your cause. Peace is beyond all price! :)



"Pacifism Killed Us All
For The Tourists on the Berlin Wall"


This appeared in a Manics song. Did you quote them, or was the "lyric" stolen? ('Freedom of Speech won't feed my children' - that was the song, I think!)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 10 2004, 09:01 PM
Whats everyones opinions of Pacifism? I think it is quite admirable and courageous if a bit stupid.
it's very noble yes, but unrealistic.

[gaf]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10 2004, 07:57 PM

it's very noble yes, but unrealistic.
like war did it trough history.he!


people are speaking peace only when war has broken out(or about to) that's realistic

[Orange Juche]

I am a pacifist. The best way to put it is the way the founder of the war resisters league said it - "There is no way to peace, peace is the way."

[Hate Is Art]

Yes it is TCOTR, just because no thread can be complete with somekind of obsucre Manic's reference.

Stupid as in, running at an armed gaurd whilst unarmed. Isn't to bright is it!

[Dawood]

Pacifism is great. For the rulers atleast. Then they can de whatever the hell they want.

As the Black Panthers said: "Marthing Luther King was never stronger than the crazy nigger standing behind him with a molotov coctail!"

[BuyOurEverything]

it's very noble yes, but unrealistic.

Sticking your head in the sand is not noble. If you refuse to defend yourself and others against aggressors, you are responsible for the outcome.

[apathy maybe]

I am a semi-pacifist, that is I will defend my self, friends, family, ideals etc. I

I don't like the idea of killing someone though. Mind you I have never been in a situation where I was threatened enough that I had to kill someone.
And probably most pacifists haven't been in a situation where someone is trying to kill them or their friends, family. If they have I believe that it would be a hard choice for those dedicated pacifists.



(nsa bombs kill nukes dirty bomb whitehouse musilm yanks bush shrub kill howard die communist terrorist isreal blow up embassy kill yanks americans howard bush nukes dirtybomb white house sydney opera house etc)

[elijahcraig]

it's very noble yes, but unrealistic.

Ah, I see you've finally come to grips and described your anarchist myth perfectly.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 11 2004, 09:52 AM
I am a semi-pacifist
How can you semi reject violence. You either accept it or you reject it. You cannot use violence against someone while being a pacifist?

[Subversive Rob]

There are different types of pacifism that can be attributed to different regions. Therefore ew cannot say pacifism is purely bourgeois. Pacifism on a large scale transforms into something else, perhaps a form of "passive revolution" as characterised by Gramsci. Thus Christopher Caudwell said:

"Bourgeois pacifism is distinctive and should not be confused, for example, with Eastern pacifism, any more than modem European warfare should be confused with feudal warfare. It is not merely that the social manifestations of it are different-this would necessarily arise from the different social organs of the two cultures. But the content also is different. Anyone who supposes that bourgeois pacifism will, for example, take the form of a University Anti-War Group lying down on the rails 'in front of a departing troop train like an Indian pacifist group, is to be ignorant of the nature of bourgeois pacifism and of whence it took its colour. The historic example of bourgeois pacifism is not Gandhi but Fox. The Society of Friends expresses the spirit of bourgeois pacifism. It is individual resistance."

- C. Caudwell; PACIFISM & VIOLENCE - A Study in Bourgeois Ethics


Stupid? How so? Pacifism is wonderful; I support it totally. Using force only "legitimises" (read: gives others an excuse) the use of the same against you - and your cause. Peace is beyond all price

Not using force legimitises the existing order as democratic...

[Hate Is Art]

I don't consider myself a pacifist, but am really against the use of violence in most cases, unless you are attacked first or it really is for a good reason.

[apathy maybe]

I can reject some violence but not all.

A semi-pacifist may reject violence which causes long lasting harm, or violence when there are other options.

Personally I haven't had any real experience with violence to test the limit of my pacifism. But I won't attack someone, but will defend myself (if you know what I mean). Also I agree with the basics of pacifism, even if I'm not strong willed enough to follow total non-violence in all situations.

[Palmares]

I dislike violence in most forms, but I am not dogmatic and believe there is room for circumstances when peace has been abused and one must use other methods to reach a favourable outcome.

If someone hit me (a light punch, not a death punch) I would either ignore, or swear at them.

If someone killed someone I cared about (or hurt me in an equivalent way), I would be very tempted to, and quite impossibly care out some form of revenge upon them (like signed up their email address to penis enlargement spam).

[Vladimir I. Kropotkin]

Im of the belief that if all non-violent means are exhausted, then you're left with only one alternative, and that is violent strugle. I find many pacifists unhelpful and dogmatic, and all come from this protected middle-class, most of whom will never have their dogma tested, by say a repressive dictator. Im all for non-violent forms of struggle to their limits, but to not be prepared to defend yourself once if the non-violent means are no longer working, or havent worked, and the conditions continue to deteriorate, i think is pointless. Pacificism in my opinion is unjustifiable as an immutable practice, i dont for a second think that the Indigenous people of Australia, Africa, Asia or The Americas should have layed down at the feet of their colonial invaders, if someone is raping and killing your people, to not defend yourself, to survive, is criminal.

[DaCuBaN]

A true pacifist deserves more respect than any other... They are willing to stand up for what they believe in, to try and be counted and yet refuse to use any form of violence whatsoever to achieve their goals.

They have more courage than the most of this board put together, and I salute them.

*EDIT* Though I don't expect most of them to live for very long... :(

[Daymare17]

To reject the use of violence in the conquest of power of the proletariat is to reject the conquest of power. To renounce the conquest of power is to voluntarily leave it to those who wield it, the exploiters. Thus pacifism is a servant of capitalism. The individual pacifists, of course, are usually honest but misguided.

[DaCuBaN]

To reject the use of violence in the conquest of power of the proletariat is to reject the conquest of power. To renounce the conquest of power is to voluntarily leave it to those who wield it, the exploiters. Thus pacifism is a servant of capitalism

Intruiging....

Much like communism, pacifism is ideological in it's outlook on the world. Many agree that communism cannot be sustained (nor even achieved) within one country, and pacifism is somewhat similar.

As long as there are capitalist nations, communism is doomed to failure, and as long as there are people willing to use any means necessary to achieve their goals then pacifism is doomed.

Both require global acceptance as the 'right' way to do things before either can be truly succesful. This is however highly unlikely.

*EDIT*
It's basically a case of whether you consider the 'revolution' must become a bloodshed or not. After all, the capitalists are outnumbered. If every worker the world over laid down his 'tools' then the whole structure around us would crumble.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Not using force legimitises the existing order as democratic...


Rubbish! Balderdash! Tripe!

Someone is likely to rip my head off for this, (in response to which I shall only offer a smile... :lol: ) but - what about Gandhi? Whether you agree with his ideology or not; he effected change by non-violent means. Which is wonderful.



If every worker the world over laid down his 'tools' then the whole structure around us would crumble.


Precisely.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 15 2004, 11:21 AM
what about Gandhi? Whether you agree with his ideology or not; he effected change by non-violent means. Which is wonderful.
Gandhi was one of the most perfidious people in the 20th century. If you study his speeches you will clearly see that far from being a great Indian revolutionary, his entire policy was aimed at CONTAINING and DERAILING the inevitable Indian revolution.

Here are some quotes of this great "humanitarian" servant of capitalism:

Gandhi on private ownership:
" I will never be a participant in snatching away of the properties from their owners and you should know that I will use all my influence and authority against class war. If somebody wants to deprive you from your property you will find me standing shoulder to shoulder with you"
taken from Partition can it be undone? by Lal Khan page 52.

When a group of soldiers refused to fire on an anti-imperialist demonstration Gandhi condemned it and said:
"When a soldier refuses to fire then he is guilty of betraying his oath (!). I can never advise soldiers to defy the orders of officers because, if tomorrow I form a government, I will have to use the same soldiers and officers. If today I advise them for any defiance then tomorrow they can also refuse to obey my orders"
Ibid page 52.

Could it be more clear that Gandhi was opposed to violence, only when it was directed against imperialism?

[Louis Pio]

It amases me that people still have illusions in Ghandi :(
This subject have been discussed several times. Ghandi made a deal with the british imperialists and as Daymare states he derailed the revolutionary movement on the subcontinent. The partition lead to massslaughter, how is this a succes?

[DaCuBaN]

his entire policy was aimed at CONTAINING and DERAILING the inevitable Indian revolution

Yes... as a pacifist he didn't want to see man killing man, let alone brother killing brother.

What you are telling us is that Ghandi was not a pacifist. I'll secede that point if you wish, though it is of no relevance to those who will not condone violence in any way shape or form. Judging by your quotes this would make Ghandi a traitor as well, thus nullifying the point that pacifists are traitors to the revolution

Frankly, the pacifists are the only ones who see the world the way it should be.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 11:05 AM
As long as there are capitalist nations, communism is doomed to failure, and as long as there are people willing to use any means necessary to achieve their goals then pacifism is doomed.

Both require global acceptance as the 'right' way to do things before either can be truly succesful. This is however highly unlikely.

*EDIT*
It's basically a case of whether you consider the 'revolution' must become a bloodshed or not. After all, the capitalists are outnumbered. If every worker the world over laid down his 'tools' then the whole structure around us would crumble.
Pacifism is neither more nor less than the total rejection of all use of force. Precisely for this reason it must be condemned.

Of course there is a possibility that a capitalist regime, faced with a general uprising of the workers, will simply "fold up" like the Eastern European regimes did. But what you are asking is that we take this as our starting point.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you have no stomach for violence, get the hell out of radical politics.
The moment we down tools and refuse to work, and ruling class cajolery doesn't work, what precisely do you think they will do? they can't force us to work, but they can attempt to intimidate us through any means necessary.
They can set the nazis loose on us (IE refuse to protect us when they attack our pickets) they can sic the police in full riot gear on us, or god help us, the army in riot gear, and we can experience for ourselves what lovely people they are, just like at Miami (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19438&hl=miami)!

The moment we refuse to fight the pigs, scabs and picket-crossers is the moment we lose.

When they are fighting us, trying to intimidate us into working for them again, we are not working, not producing, and so the ruling class end up fighting a war of attrition that they slowly but surely lose; they are bleeding to death!

We must bleed them absolutely dry.

You could do this using pacifism of course; but it's gonna get more people killed, raped, and tortured!

[Louis Pio]

What you are telling us is that Ghandi was not a pacifist. I'll succeed that point if you wish, though it is of no relevance to those who will not condone violence in any way shape or form. Judging by your quotes this would make Ghandi a traitor as well, thus nullifying the point that pacifists are traitors to the revolution


Well first off Ghandi wasn't a socialist, so he can't be a traitor to the revolution since he was opposed to it. Secondly I think this quote shows his bigotry:

When a group of soldiers refused to fire on an anti-imperialist demonstration Gandhi condemned it and said:
"When a soldier refuses to fire then he is guilty of betraying his oath (!). I can never advise soldiers to defy the orders of officers because, if tomorrow I form a government, I will have to use the same soldiers and officers. If today I advise them for any defiance then tomorrow they can also refuse to obey my orders"
Ibid page 52.


So as we can see he is not even pacifist.

Also his policies lead to the slaughter of over a million following the partition of the indian subcontinent.
So it's ridicoulous to say this "Frankly, the pacifists are the only ones who see the world the way it should be." unless you are saying that pacisfists just live in some fantasy world...

[DaCuBaN]

OK, firstly I'm a fence sitter. I admire pacifism, I do not participate though as it's futile under current conditions


You could do this using pacifism of course; but it's gonna get more people killed, raped, and tortured!


The most honourable thing about pacifism is that this is a voluntary punishment. They have the choice to use force and choose not to. The force would avoid them getting abused, and yet the do not.

This is highly commendable in my eyes.


Well first off Ghandi wasn't a socialist

No shit ;)


he can't be a traitor to the revolution since he was opposed to it

My apologies for not making this clear, but I wasn't even talking socialism here - simply the revolution in india that began the withdrawl of Imperial forces and self-determination for 'India'


So it's ridicoulous to say this "Frankly, the pacifists are the only ones who see the world the way it should be." unless you are saying that pacisfists just live in some fantasy world...

It was an extension of the idea that they are idealists - that the means by which they wish to achieve their goal are commendable, but impossible as long as there are others willing to use violence to achieve the same goal. I formly believe that a non-violent world is the way it 'should' be.

It's almost ironic: The pacifists are considered traitors by the revolters, and vice versa.

[Louis Pio]

The most honourable thing about pacifism is that this is a voluntary punishment. They have the choice to use force and choose not to. The force would avoid them getting abused, and yet the do not.


But in the case of Ghandis "pacifism" it lead to many other getting slaughtered, and that was not voluntarily.


My apologies for not making this clear, but I wasn't even talking socialism here - simply the revolution in india that began the withdrawl of Imperial forces and self-determination for 'India'


Well it quckly developed into a socialist movement. if we look at british papers from that time the ones they are afraid of is people like Bhagat Singh and the social movement.
Not Ghandi, they always knew he was "their man".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The most honourable thing about pacifism is that this is a voluntary punishment. They have the choice to use force and choose not to. The force would avoid them getting abused, and yet the do not.

This is highly commendable in my eyes.

No, they are either stupid or insane.

Stupid because it's plain dumb to submit yourself to harm by other who have no restraint.

Insane because because rather than getting edgy and getting their adrenaline going (Which draws blood to muscles for 'fight or flight') they choose instead to increase their pain by allowing a pig to break a nightstick over their head.

Standing at the pickets and watching the bastards in blue approach you, geared up in intentionally frightening uniforms, is going to be a stomach churning experience.
It will actually hurt less if you fight, because you will be dodging instead of standing there cringing, expecting the pain as the baton swings down.

Are pacifists allowed to run? Is suppose they could, but there's only so far you can run.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Gandhi was one of the most perfidious people in the 20th century. If you study his speeches you will clearly see that far from being a great Indian revolutionary, his entire policy was aimed at CONTAINING and DERAILING the inevitable Indian revolution.


I did suggest you ignored his ideology...

By the way, you'll have to find more than one quote; and twist his words a little better than that, to convince me.



The moment we down tools and refuse to work, and ruling class cajolery doesn't work, what precisely do you think they will do? They can't force us to work, but they can attempt to intimidate us through any means necessary.


The workers control the labour. Without labour to exploit, there is no capitalist class. No-one said the revolution would be easy - you're not afraid of a struggle are you? Just as the capitalists cheap prices battered down the Chinese Wall, (I love that metaphor!) our ideas will be the assault and battery on the bourgeois fortress!



You could do this using pacifism of course; but it's gonna get more people killed, raped, and tortured!


By the sounds of things, my bloodthirsty comrade, you're rather into violent butchery. I wish you the best of luck. Clean your machette and wipe the entrails off your boots before you enter the commune, though. I'll be reading some poetry and playing love songs on my guitar, no doubt... :lol:

[Louis Pio]

By the way, you'll have to find more than one quote; and twist his words a little better than that, to convince me.

Look at his actions instead. He helped the partition of the subcontinet, that's quite reactionary!
And secondly why do you think the quotes are twisted? It seems your illusions in Ghandi has no backing but you refuse to accept it...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The workers control the labour. Without labour to exploit, there is no capitalist class. No-one said the revolution would be easy - you're not afraid of a struggle are you? Just as the capitalists cheap prices battered down the Chinese Wall, (I love that metaphor!) our ideas will be the assault and battery on the bourgeois fortress!

I'm sure that the ruling class are aware of this, and will use any means necessary to get us back to work. Thjis will include among them, propoganda (At first) simple thuggery, police violence, the army (Who can be a LOT nastier than the police), Interrogation of prominent revolutionaries, torture and rape (Ever been assraped? With a broomstick?)

Capitalism may collapse whatever the capitalists do, but the snake's deadliest bite is it's last.

[Louis Pio]

Let's look at some more on Ghandi. This is from the exellent book called "Partition, Can it be undone" by Lal khan.
You can order it here http://wellred.marxist.com/index.asp?c=FB

"From it's inception, it was the party of the Indian domestic ruling class toadying to the british elites. the Congress leaders always had close relations to the British Viceroys in India. They were bestowed with honors and awards from the British Crown. Ghandi was bestowed Kaisar-e-Hind medal by Lord Harding, viceroy to India from 1910-1916. Such was the the subservice of the Congress leaders that the British viceroys were full of praise for them. On 9th March 1931, the viceroy at the time, Lord irwin, wrote in a letter to his father his views about Ghandi, "I kept asking myself all the time was the man completely sincere? I came to have no doubt that if Mr. Ghandi gave me his word on any point, the word was always secured and that I could trust him implicitly."
Page 51.

So it seems Ghandi was pretty chummy with the british imperialists. And that they didn't see him as a treat but rather as someone who could help them defend their interests. We have to keep in mind that the Partition was solely in the interests of the british and the different bourgiosie in what later became Pakistan and India.
Their biggest fear was a succesfull social movement and Ghandi helped them in diverting that.

[DaCuBaN]

Their biggest fear was a succesfull social movement and Ghandi helped them in diverting that.

This shows no more than poor judgement - He was not allied with the Imperialists of the time, but as I already said

What you are telling us is that Ghandi was not a pacifist. I'll secede that point

My apologies Teis, but if you want to discuss Ghandi start a thread and link it in here, as theres plenty of ground to cover without getting bogged down on one man.

It is not a fight I would choose.


No, they are either stupid or insane.

Stupid because it's plain dumb to submit yourself to harm by other who have no restraint.


Like confronting the police/army when you are armed. Or rather asking to get the living shit beaten out of you. The moment force is used you justify the rebuttal.



Insane because because rather than getting edgy and getting their adrenaline going (Which draws blood to muscles for 'fight or flight') they choose instead to increase their pain by allowing a pig to break a nightstick over their head.


The fact that the police and army are workers too is of no relevance to you... it's 'us and them' from your perspective. Come the revolution, if this train of thought is not expunged it's going to be rather difficult. How is revolution ever possible if the police are ostracised?



Standing at the pickets and watching the bastards in blue approach you, geared up in intentionally frightening uniforms, is going to be a stomach churning experience.
It will actually hurt less if you fight, because you will be dodging instead of standing there cringing, expecting the pain as the baton swings down.


This is precisely the reason why pacifism is commendable. By not striking back you take the 'moral high-ground' - If 1 million people line up against 100,000 troops and sit down, what can they do? If they fire tear gas into the crowd - as has happened before - and they just sit their writhing in pain - but not trying to escape or to fight back - what do they do?

It leaves them with no options in the long run, but is incredibly painful for those who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause. This is the reason I consider it 'honourable'


Are pacifists allowed to run? Is suppose they could, but there's only so far you can run

It somewhat defeats the purpose... I believe a pacifist who runs is simply a coward.


I'm sure that the ruling class are aware of this, and will use any means necessary to get us back to work. Thjis will include among them, propoganda (At first) simple thuggery, police violence, the army (Who can be a LOT nastier than the police), Interrogation of prominent revolutionaries, torture and rape (Ever been assraped? With a broomstick?)


Yet through this all the pacifist screams about his cause - not his plight - and holds fast. Why is this not commendable?


Capitalism may collapse whatever the capitalists do, but the snake's deadliest bite is it's last

Indeed - and the method by which it falls is of no relevence - it will 'bite' no matter how it's downfall is achieved.

[Louis Pio]

This shows no more than poor judgement - He was not allied with the Imperialists of the time, but as I already said



But he was and that's the whole point. The people we should respect are people like Bhagat Singh, not some capitalist appologist like Ghandi.


My apologies Teis, but if you want to discuss Ghandi start a thread and link it in here, as theres plenty of ground to cover without getting bogged down on one man.


Now I have been discussing this several times but it always seems some people wants to keep their illusions in Ghandi. So if people brings it up I discuss it. Ghandi was one of the subcontinets biggest hypocrites and should be treated that way. His "pacifism" was no more than a cover. And ke helped the british defend their interest. He helped the partition (one of histories big crimes). And he was chummy with the british imperialists. That's not admirable.
Now I know their is a big Ghandi cult, but that is precisely because he was no treat so he's a safe rebel.

[boško buha]

končar, a croat anti-fascist, communist and ex-yu national hero said to the fascists when they caught him:" give me no mercy for i would give none to you." i think that pacifism cannot change the structure of society but i wish it could.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Like confronting the police/army when you are armed. Or rather asking to get the living shit beaten out of you. The moment force is used you justify the rebuttal.

Actually, the moment you choose not to be a drone and stop working for the capitalists is when you ask to have the shit beat out of you.

Rebuttal of any kind from the pigs is NEVER justified.


The fact that the police and army are workers too is of no relevance to you... it's 'us and them' from your perspective. Come the revolution, if this train of thought is not expunged it's going to be rather difficult. How is revolution ever possible if the police are ostracised?

Becuase any police/soldiers left by the time of revolution are class traitors and deserve anything they get.


This is precisely the reason why pacifism is commendable. By not striking back you take the 'moral high-ground' - If 1 million people line up against 100,000 troops and sit down, what can they do? If they fire tear gas into the crowd - as has happened before - and they just sit their writhing in pain - but not trying to escape or to fight back - what do they do?

The same thing could be said of violent uprising- except in the case of violence we actually use our numerical advantage and strike a blow against our oppressors and their lackeys.
Sitting there may simply embolden them to do something worse, while a violent counter-attack will make them think twice about dicking with the masses.
Violence in this case is more 'moral' as it causes more damage to the ruling class.

People should not become victims simply because some pacifists wish to claim 'moral superiority'.
By fighting back the working class becomes greater than the sum of it's parts.


Yet through this all the pacifist screams about his cause - not his plight - and holds fast. Why is this not commendable?

Your screams will fall on deaf ears. cops and scabs care not for either your plight nor your cause. Some particular sadists might even be entertained by your agonised squealing.
Speak to them in the only language they understand, and don't just speak, SHOUT


Indeed - and the method by which it falls is of no relevence - it will 'bite' no matter how it's downfall is achieved.

It is important that a strong message is sent to the capitalists: Don't mess with the masses!

[DaCuBaN]

Teis - my point was that a thread on Ghandi would be a good idea, and that linking it into this debate would be handy, and allow us to remain on the point at hand without being sidetracked. As I've already stated, I don't consider Ghandi to be the 'perfect pacifist'.

I do apologise for my tone though - reading back it seemed more like an order than a request. Please accept my apologies.


Rebuttal of any kind from the pigs is NEVER justified

Ok... you go punch a copper and see what happens. I think you'll end up in hospital mate ;)


Becuase any police/soldiers left by the time of revolution are class traitors and deserve anything they get.

Not all coppers are the evil bastards they are made out to be - indeed many people join the forces to try and do good (and admittedly leave eventually) and as such you have to (as with everything else) apply the same formula to each on an individual basis. If you do not you in fact make them class traitors

Suffice to say I would not care to stand shoulder to shoulder with you if this is how you think.


Sitting there may simply embolden them to do something worse, while a violent counter-attack will make them think twice about dicking with the masses.


You mean like the US is doing in reference to the twin towers? A violent attack always promotes a violent response.


People should not become victims simply because some pacifists wish to claim 'moral superiority'.
By fighting back the working class becomes greater than the sum of it's parts.

This is why the left never wins. We really are far too diverse a group of individuals to agree on the methodology to attain our goal. My point still stands: If people choose to become the punch bag to try and help raise awareness through means such as mass media and the like, is it any right of yours to tell them otherwise? On the flipside of course, should the pacifist have the right to criticise the revolter? After all, it is their unscrupulous methodology that gives legitimacy to the pacifists cause...


It is important that a strong message is sent to the capitalists: Don't mess with the masses!

...Or we'll take your kneecaps.

Personally, I feel it just a tad more sensible to show them that they are fighting a losing battle.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fine, you have your way, I'll have mine. As I've noted pacifism is not totally useless, but it does have specific limitations that I've mentioned.
However, there is no reason to reject violence on the basis that it is 'immoral' or 'insensible'. Until 'morals' are clearly defined as concrete and material things and not simply rules and conventions adopted by a society or even an individual, both violence and pacifism come with consequences and it is your willingness to accept these consequences that define your actions.
I am perfectly willing to accept the consequences of violent struggle.

See you at the barricades.

PS:


Not all coppers are the evil bastards they are made out to be - indeed many people join the forces to try and do good (and admittedly leave eventually) and as such you have to (as with everything else) apply the same formula to each on an individual basis. If you do not you in fact make them class traitors

I expect most of the police/army who aren't turds will have left by the time proletarian revolution looks like a remote possibility- so what'll be left will be the dregs.

[DaCuBaN]

Until 'morals' are clearly defined as concrete and material things and not simply rules and conventions adopted by a society or even an individual, both violence and pacifism come with consequences and it is your willingness to accept these consequences that define your actions

Indeed, but I'm a subjectivist - so my yellow is not your yellow ;)


I am perfectly willing to accept the consequences of violent struggle

As I have already stated, I do not stand in opposition to direct action. I simply fear that it may have a more sever backlash than anticipated.


I expect most of the police/army who aren't turds will have left by the time proletarian revolution looks like a remote possibility- so what'll be left will be the dregs

I can't speak for the validity of the source (an IT Weekly issue from last week speaking about e-crime), but the UK is alleged to have a mere 140,000 policemen.

Doesn't really seem like much when you look at it like that...


See you at the barricades

So long as you hide that kosh until they get real close please, I could do without getting attacked first :lol:

Apologies for my tone yesterday: I was in a foul mood all day and pretty much started venting on the board.

[Daymare17]

See my sig
'nuff said :P