(Absolute) Pacifism

[Palmares]

Often among the left (less among the radical left) the concept of pacifism has been held in high regard. Who could forget Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr? These are always held as victories of peaceful protests, or pacifism. But I would contend that this is a misconception, as such movements were successful due to their popularity, the vast number to which protested - people power. Not pacifism.

With that taken away, what has pacifism achieved?

I am by no means saying that we should taken absolute disregard for pacifism. It has its place, but not as an absolute.

Why do such people believe we must refrain from violence in all circumstances? There are many arguments, but one argument I would like to look at may simply be that we are civilised enough to resolve issues without violence. Indeed I would infact agree with this assertion - to a point. The point being that not all people are civilised enough to resolve conflicts with out violence.

This must be treated with caution however. In first world countries it would be a strategic error to commit a violent act for a cause (revolution), as the necessary circumstances are not there: society is not usually structured in such a way that individuals are physically and/or mentally oppressed to the edge. However the same cannot be said for countries that do not have the "liberal" freedoms of the west. Conditions exist in such places that could push someone to do whatever necessary steps there maybe be to emancipate themselves.

People in the first world have it lucky, and thus many cannot conceive circumstances in which violence could be necessary. But if they lived in conditions such as those are endured by in third world countries, pacifism would no longer have such meaning.

So is pacifism really just the first world condescending the third world? Or is the third world behind in their thinking?

[RedAnarchist]

Pacifism is a good thing, but even if we in the West do have liberal freedoms, i think that all revolutions should be violent - how else can we get rid of the bourgoise? Yes, great people like Luther King and Ghandi managed to change things for the better without violence - but they were not Communist. Great, great people, but they did not want a revolution in the communist context of the word.

[Essential Insignificance]

Often among the left (less among the radical left) the concept of pacifism has been held in high regard. Who could forget Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr? These are always held as victories of peaceful protests, or pacifism. But I would contend that this is a misconception, as such movements were successful due to their popularity, the vast number to which protested - people power. Not pacifism.

That's definitely a paragraph of verity.

But what exactly does pacifism entail? A "pledge" to non-violence throughout society as a whole and/or a "mechanism" to achieve a social-political objective through actively or inactively -- means -- of non violent resistance against a civilly ostracized judgment?

Peaceful protest's in capitalist society's have been, to say the least -- morally highly regarded by society in general -- by means of "social conditioning" -- and the ruling class in particular: this begs the question why? I think it's pretty obvious.

Throughout one's schooling years they're drummed with the beat, "how great Ghandi was!"

Pacifism achieves nothing (for the most part) and it's thus, no threat to the "well being" and domination of the ruling class.

It's not a real, fearful or even authentic "tool" to fight against the ruling class.

Never has been, never will be!

It just conforms to their "rule" -- of peaceful protest... "it's okay for you to protest, but just promise us that you won't take it any further".


Why do such people believe we must refrain from violence in all circumstances? There are many arguments, but one argument I would like to look at may simply be that we are civilised enough to resolve issues without violence.

Now that's the pinnacle of bourgeois reasoning -- if I've ever heard it... "even you, the peasants are civilized enough not to use violent means to take control".

The domination of capital cannot be "resolved" through reforms and/or by means of non-violent struggle.


This must be treated with caution however. In first world countries it would be a strategic error to commit a violent act for a cause (revolution), as the necessary circumstances are not there: society is not usually structured in such a way that individuals are physically and/or mentally oppressed to the edge.

I would have to disagree, and history would agree.

The social conditions of first-world countries can be put under immense social strains -- that give objective way, to these kinds of actions.


However the same cannot be said for countries that do not have the "liberal" freedoms of the west. Conditions exist in such places that could push someone to do whatever necessary steps there maybe be to emancipate themselves.

The same applies for liberal capitalist nations -- in my belief.


Pacifism is a good thing, but even if we in the West do have liberal freedoms, i think that all revolutions should be violent - how else can we get rid of the bourgoise? Yes, great people like Luther King and Ghandi managed to change things for the better without violence - but they were not Communist. Great, great people, but they did not want a revolution in the communist context of the word.

Pacifism is a false hope, therefore it's "bad thing" -- that's why the ruling class give you they're seal of approval to "practice" it.

[apathy maybe]

What the man (Cthenthar) is trying to ask, while pacifism is cool and all, we in the "liberal democracies" are not being as oppressed as others. Thus, is it condescending to say that people in dictatorships should be pacifists?

Pacifism is a rejection of all violence. You can still attend protests, disobey laws and filth, etc. and still be pacifist.

I personally think that as much as possible non-violence should be used, but in a country like Saudi Arabia it might not be possible to resist with out violence, thus they should use it.

(And EI, did you read the first paragraph?, Cthenthar is saying that is wasn't pacifism in those cases.)

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Cthenthar+Oct 21 2004, 12:23 PM--> (Cthenthar @ Oct 21 2004, 12:23 PM)Often among the left (less among the radical left) the concept of pacifism has been held in high regard. Who could forget Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr? These are always held as victories of peaceful protests, or pacifism. But I would contend that this is a misconception, as such movements were successful due to their popularity, the vast number to which protested - people power. Not pacifism.

With that taken away, what has pacifism achieved?

I am by no means saying that we should take absolute disregard for pacifism. It has its place, but not as an absolute.

[EDIT: important parts highlighted, spelling corrected][/b]
apathy maybe is correct.

I am sorry if I was misinterpreted, but I was saying that Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr were not successes of pacifism, but of a popular struggle.


Originally posted by [email protected]
The social conditions of first-world countries can be put under immense social strains -- that give objective way, to these kinds of actions.

I mean simply that the neccessary conditions are not currently present. Indeed they may come in to be at some point, but in general first world countries at least give the appearance of a just society (however incorrect this may be).

To me, third world countries in most cases (if not all) beyond all doubt have circumstances which could agitate a violent struggle.


EI
Pacifism is a false hope, therefore it's "bad thing" -- that's why the ruling class give you they're seal of approval to "practice" it.

Couldn't agree more (as long as we are talking about absolute pacifism).

[Essential Insignificance]

What the man (Cthenthar) is trying to ask, while pacifism is cool and all, we in the "liberal democracies" are not being as oppressed as others. Thus, is it condescending to say that people in dictatorships should be pacifists?

Oh, okay then... my mistake.


I am sorry if I was misinterpreted, but I was saying that Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr were not successes of pacifism, but of a popular struggle.

No it was very apparent... totally my mistake.

Don't you think that pacifism would imply popular "stuggle".


I mean simply that the neccessary conditions are not currently present. Indeed they may come in to be at some point, but in general first world countries at least give the appearance of a just society (however incorrect this may be).

I knowledge thus... but the potentiality is never at rest.


To me, third world countries in most cases (if not all) beyond all doubt have circumstances which could agitate a violent struggle.

Indeed... but the same goes for highly industrialized capitalist nations.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 22 2004, 04:17 AM
...Don't you think that pacifism would imply popular "stuggle".
There are many cases where pacifists stand up in front of bulldosers or Monks set themselves on fire ,which I guess is hurting themselves and I don't know if that qualifies.
For many people pacifism seems to be a personal or spiritual struggle.
You are right about it being used against the working class but so are so many other historical events. Pacifism also has the power to inspire, though I agree, there is a point where you should defend yourself and if violence is needed to claim the lives of working class people, so be it.

[Essential Insignificance]

There are many cases where pacifists stand up in front of bulldosers or Monks set themselves on fire ,which I guess is hurting themselves and I don't know if that qualifies.

I guess that would be quasi-pacifism -- active-pacifism -- if you will.

Dam those silly old monks... what stupidity it was that they set themselves on fire -- to prove what: how long it take's for a human body to burn!

A total waste of a life!


Pacifism also has the power to inspire, though I agree, there is a point where you should defend yourself and if violence is needed to claim the lives of working class people, so be it.

It inspires artificial conclusion's -- nothing "good" could ever come out of it.

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 22 2004, 04:17 AM
Indeed... but the same goes for highly industrialized capitalist nations.
Especially since these are usually the ones who are exploiting third world countries, as well as everyone else.

If people were to rely on pacifism too often, the bourgeois would still have us all where they want us. It just makes it even easier for them to do things since they would be able to take advantage of the fact no one will do anything about it.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 02:23 AM
With that taken away, what has pacifism achieved?


Not much at all i fear. And like Malcolm X said: I quote (i dont remember it exactly, but its along the lines of...) Marthin Luther King was never stronger then the crazy nigger behind him with a molotov coctail in his hand. And thats really true. Martin Luther King was a great man, and he did much. But he and his peaceful protestors lived in symbiois with the more militant blacks, like tha black panthers. They needed eachother.

And the same with Gandhi...really, what is more likely to have gotten rid of the brittish? That some old man let himself be beaten, or the hundreds of strikes, riots, protests, etc that the indian working class used against the brittish? India became to unstabil, and it was to costly to keep an army in india, so they withdraw. Gandhi surely played some part, but not the major part, even if we learn so in school and in the media. They prefere that to teatching us that, then teaching us that riots, violence, demonstrations and strikes accually may be a solution.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 12:23 PM
So is pacifism really just the first world condescending the third world? Or is the third world behind in their thinking?
Anyone like to answer this question (given it is the basis of this thread)?

[Essential Insignificance]

So is pacifism really just the first world condescending the third world? Or is the third world behind in their thinking?

Anyone like to answer this question (given it is the basis of this thread)?

Well it would most certainly seem so.

The "first world" have a profound proclivity to announce and force their supposed "spiritual" and "cultural" superiority over the "uncultivated" and "unsophisticated" "savage"... "you follow our way, and you might just get out of the shit!".

And in this case -- "violence against the first world monopolizers, isn't your answer, to your misery".

It's bullshit! (if I may be so crude).

I wouldn't say the third world is "behind" in their thinking -- instead it is the first world who are regressing to illusions and fantasies of the real world.

The multinational capitalist's, who are robbing the land and people of their "riches" are not go to step down -- because of the peaceful protest, of either local of international protesters across the world... "the money is simply just to good, to give up".