pascifism

[man in the red suit]

it sounds good in theory but is it really a good idea?
I say war is nescesary for certain things wouldn't you?
Ending war would be great, but is it really something that can be ended? I personally disagree. i don't really like pascifism much but I want your opinions.

[Ymir]

Someone has a signature that goes along the lines of "Pasifism is for those who wish to delay the inevtiable" or something. I do not think massive global warfare such as the World Wars or civil wars are nescessary and I think that peaceful means could be just as effective and be better in the longterm. I won't say them because the last time i expressed those opinions someone called me a "hitlerian" propagandizer.

[Contrarian]

Peace will not come out of a clash of arms, but out of justice lived, and done, by unarmed nations in the face of odds."Tit for tat" is the law of the brute of unregenerate man. Moral results can only be produced by moral restraints.

P.S. Ymir, in true democracy every man and woman is taught to think for himself or herself. Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep.

[marxistdisciple]

I think people can live without war, we do in europe now because western nations have good standards of living comparitatively. The places where wars happen are usually fighting because they have little and want what is left, or over feud for land or religion. We have different religions in europe but there isn't EU wars. I think when countries have basic necessities of life, wars will either cease to exist, or exist on a much smaller scale.
You can change things democratically without war, war seems to miss the point somehow....majorly. It sort of shows the two sides are too frustrated and enveloped in hatred to use their brains anymore...always comes down to "you can't kill me, because I'll kill you first."
So no to war, unless it is to protect your land from attackers, and even then not in a Israel/Palestein situation (that is a group of individuals, not an army)

Pacifism works in a non war situation, because in peacetime violence is not considered normal rational behavior.

[Ymir]

Contrarian- what brought democracy into this?

[RGacky3]

war is not neccesary. As long as Imperialism and Capitalism exist, war will continue. I am not a pascfist, but I don't think peace is impossible.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 9:14 pm on June 24, 2002
it sounds good in theory but is it really a good idea?
I say war is nescesary for certain things wouldn't you?
Ending war would be great, but is it really something that can be ended? I personally disagree. i don't really like pascifism much but I want your opinions.
Idiots who ALWAYS think war is the solution are and complete pacifists are just as bad.

[Rob]

I think that violence should only be used when necessary.

[man in the red suit]

that's what I think. I think that violence is in certain times, nescesary. I don't think that war is the way to solve things, but it is nescesary at times. The American pascifists think that war can be prevented at all costs and that there is NEVER a need for it in any circumstances. I just don't agree with this type of pascifism, that's all. No need to refer to me as an idiot and what not.

[peaccenicked]

Lenin is good on this.
Socialists have always condemned wars between nations as barbarous and brutal. Our attitude towards war, however, is fundamentally different from that of the bourgeois pacifists (supporters and advocates of peace) and of the anarchists. We differ from the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and the class struggle within a country; we understand that wars cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and socialism is created; we also differ in that we regard civil wars, i.e., wars waged by an oppressed class against the oppressor class, by slaves against slaveholders, by serfs against landowners, and by wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as fully legitimate, progressive and necessary. We Marxists differ from both pacifists and anarchists in that we deem it necessary to study each war historically (from the standpoint of Marx's dialectical materialism) and separately. There have been in the past numerous wars which, despite all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive, i.e., benefited the development of mankind by helping to destroy most harmful and reactionary institutions (e.g., an autocracy or serfdom) and the most barbarous despotisms in Europe (the Turkish and the Russian).

[man in the red suit]

good post. I agree with that. You made things quite clear for me. Thanx.