View Full Version : Pacifism
James
24th May 2002, 16:35
Hate to start a new thread, but i've noticed alot of people seem very keen to jump up and shout "lets kill the ba*tards!!!" or "how well can YOU fight".
I don't know who these people are, but alot of people who post here seem to be little kids who arn't thinking straight. This is of course just my opinion - i'm probably wrong, but hey thats life.
Alot of people seem to be forgetting pacifism. IT DOES WORK. Look at Gandhi (spelt???), and Martin L. King. Or don't these people count?
To me this seems to be the way most people in the "west" can "fight" much more efficently and productivly. I for one don't live in a jungle...i can't imagine hidding in my garden, behind a plant pot or something waiting for some soldiers to walk by.
Pacifism can and does work. It makes your enemy look bad, and the affects arn't short term, but LONG TERM.
Please people...some of you need to think.
Charango
24th May 2002, 16:45
I agree with you- pacifism can work. Sometimes, though, you have to fight to get people to pay attention to you. If you make a stand without fighting, people will either ignore you or throw you in jail. In a system where any questions to society are considered "bad," there is not a whole lot you can do unless you are backed up by a lot of people. Fighting, just the same, won't get very far unless you have a considerable force. In a country where a revolution is badly needed and the people want one, your best bet is to fight. However, when people still need to be convinced to side with you, pacifism is the way to go. Violence will just get you in prison. That's just my opinion, though. I really think that it depends on the situation, and what stage of development the revolution is in.
Hayduke
24th May 2002, 17:12
It would work if the people in this world would still look up when someone does a non violence act.
Charango
24th May 2002, 17:22
They don't.
Charango
24th May 2002, 17:24
And if they do, the whole thing gets squashed immediately because it's against their way of thinking.
Hayduke
24th May 2002, 17:24
Thats my point Charango,
you think people will look up of a protest of some
people that are sitting in front of a building with flags
and everything ?
The word has changed to much for that to work.
TheDerminator
24th May 2002, 18:19
Horses for courses. Pacifism could not work in the face of Nazi Germany. Sometimes, U have a moral responsibility to take up arms. Most times, U do not, because there can be a resolution without the necessity to kill.
derminated
derminated
James
24th May 2002, 19:22
Horses for courses. Pacifism could not work in the face of Nazi Germany. Sometimes, U have a moral responsibility to take up arms. Most times, U do not, because there can be a resolution without the necessity to kill.
derminated
derminated
Actually it did in some cases. A whole group of men got saved from deportation to a concentration camp because all their wives did a prtest outside this house they were being held in. What could the nazis do? They had no choice but to let this group off. True story
James
TheDerminator
24th May 2002, 19:24
Every singular does not prove the general to be true. It is also true that the war had to be fought.
derminated
Blasphemy
24th May 2002, 19:33
i can never support violence. there is ALWAYS a way around it. always...
for me it isn't so easy...in 3 years i will be drafted to the military...
Non-violence can be very effective on certain scales but on worldwide anti-capitalist basis it will not work at a time where it is almost state policy to crush any protest that is against the current system through any means necessary.
Son of Scargill
25th May 2002, 07:52
BornOfZapatasGuns,do not forget that all those soldiers,police,government officials etc. are each family members(on the whole)and the bulk of the military and police come from the working class.Society(although influenced by an elite) creates and upholds it's state.I think a worldwide movement for non-violent direct action is the only basis on which it will successfully work.If it is springing up in small pockets around the world,most people are unaffected directly,and the state systems can isolate and diffuse the situation.If it where to happen simultaniously,all over the planet,it's another story.Society would no longer support the states that are in place,and their power would wither away.Sure,they would struggle at first,but they couldn't survive long on their own.Organising a scheme of this scale is a major stumbling block.But I do not consider it impossible,just improbable.
Blasphemy,do you know what the situation is regarding the IDF"refuseniks"?Would you be able to do the same as a conscript?Or are there severe sentences for refusing/ignoring the draft in Israel.I can't imagine that it is taken lightly though.Still.Respect for your views,and respect to the IDF refuseniks.
Scargill,
Taht theory will only work if all state tools (police, army etc) become disloyal to the state but if they remain loyal, they will crush any form of pacifist resistance.
Blasphemy
25th May 2002, 13:46
it's hard to live in israel and not go to the military.
the punishment for refusing to serve in the military is 2 weeks in a military prison. not to much fun, especially if you have to go there every year....
in 3 years i will have to seriously tackle this question...what's more difficult is that my dad was a very respected general in the IDF...
thebigcom
2nd June 2002, 05:14
i am a strong believer in the use of force as long as it does not affect the innocent. as far as i am concerned pacifism is for the people who dont feel like taking action
Menshevik
2nd June 2002, 21:48
Pacifism will always gain more respect in the long run than violence will. Look at what we call militants today, "terrorists" (most of them are anyway). But people woh act as civil disobedients cannot be classified as "violent militants" or "terrorists."
Oh and, thebigcom, who do you define as innocent?
Blasphemy
5th June 2002, 18:35
Quote: from thebigcom on 7:14 am on June 2, 2002
i am a strong believer in the use of force as long as it does not affect the innocent. as far as i am concerned pacifism is for the people who dont feel like taking action
Gandhi was a pacifist, so was Martin Luther King Jr. and as far as i know, both of them had some some minor achievements...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.