Pacifism

[Jude]

I will first state that I am a Pacifist, I oppose the Iraq war, and can give various reasons why it was not necessary, and easily could have been avoided.
However, when I think about wars such as WWII, where insane, hypocritical dictators were torturing innocent people based on religion and ethnic background, I see that there are very few other alternatives, besides assassinating Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, and eventually Stalin. But even this would have brought down the wrath of revenge by their successors.
In one of Howard Zinn's books, "Just War", he claims that Humans have absolutely no natural preconditions to war and violence. But looking back on history, I do not see this at all. Even animals fight and kill for reasons beyond food and are territorial to the extent of violent defense.
So is it possible to completely abolish war, or is it only something that can be opposed, with no real progress towards an everlasting peace?

[KC]

I would say that violence would probably be necessary in about 99% of the situations. Of course, we have to also realize the fact that material conditions can give birth to a nonviolent (or largely nonviolent) revolution. It's possible, but it's highly unlikely.

Also, this question seems to be more a matter of principle, as the topic starter brought up his belief in nonviolence/pacifism. First, I would like to say that to decide on principle whether or not violence is valid is a fatal mistake to make, for you are closing yourself off to a tactic that could deem incredibly useful for no other reason than your principles. This is a completely foolish thing to do and shouldn't be done with regards to any tactic. Material conditions must always be taken into consideration when determining whether or not a tactic is "valid," and it should always be decided on a matter of strategy and not principle.

Second, I would like to say that nonviolence is different than pacificism. Nonviolence is a tactic which implements violence as a threat. Strikes and other such forms of protest utilize the tactic of nonviolence, for they are portraying the power of those involved and their potential ability to depose those in power, which would necessarily require the use of violence. Nonviolent actions are therefore implementing violence in order to achieve the goals of those involved (violence is being implemented as a threat). This is the only situation that progress has been made aside from complete revolution.

Pacifism, on the other hand, is a matter of principle and not a tactic like nonviolence. Pacifism is the inherent rejection of violence. Because of this it is completely unproductive, as the threat of violence is necessary to show power. A gathering of pacifists isn't going to threaten the state at all and will serve no other purpose than to waste the time of those involved.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Look at it from a class perspective and its relationship to the mode of production.

Primitive communism, had no features that really allowed for wars. People were nomadic, they used to trade small valuables with each other and their was alot of territory to travel.

This is also proven by African communities today, that remain communal rather than a specific class system. Prior to the western import of guns, the only conflicts were resolved through kind of like slightly violent games, where few people ever died.

Slave society. Slavery. Slaves were the source of the majority of labor, so, if you went to another area, and captured their town, you effectively can make slaves out of them. Thats a motive for war.

Feudal society, like medieval Europe, were agricultural subsistence societies. The production was limited by how much the classes above the peasants could consume. The feudalism also held back development intentionally.

So, as it was a subsistence society, the best way to get rich was through territorial and political accumulation. This would be like, invading the middle east to open up trade routes, and also plunder places for gold etc. But also, set up colonies and rulers loyal to your homeland.

Capitalism is slightly harder. War is needed to open up new markets, for resources, for labor markets and consumer markets.

hope that helps some.

ps, communism wont have war because it is classless. although, socialist countries might have to fight remaining capitalist countries.