Pacifism

[Sky]

Pacifism is an antiwar movement whose adherents believe that the principal means of preventing war is to condemn its immoral character. Pacifists condemn all wars. They even deny the legitimacy of just wars of liberation. They believe that by means of persuasion and peaceful demonstrations it is possible to prevent wars, without eliminating the socioeconomic and political conditions that give rise to them. Associated with bourgeois liberal ideology, pacifism draws fairly broad democratic circles under its influence. Pacifism acts as an accomplice of imperialism by unconditionally condemning wars for social and national liberation.

Pacifism distracts the masses from an active struggle against imperialism during periods of revolutionary upsurge. Under the conditions that emerged during World War I, Lenin regarded the pacifists’ abstract preaching of peace—pronouncements without any relations to the anti-imperialist struggle—as “one means of duping the working class.”

Communists, noting the inadequacy and the limitations of pacifism, have endeavored to unite all peace-loving forces—including pacifists who sincerely seek to prevent war—in a struggle against the threat of war posed by imperialism.

[lacysquid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:43 pm
Pacifism is an antiwar movement whose adherents believe that the principal means of preventing war is to condemn its immoral character. Pacifists condemn all wars. They even deny the legitimacy of just wars of liberation. They believe that by means of persuasion and peaceful demonstrations it is possible to prevent wars, without eliminating the socioeconomic and political conditions that give rise to them. Associated with bourgeois liberal ideology, pacifism draws fairly broad democratic circles under its influence. Pacifism acts as an accomplice of imperialism by unconditionally condemning wars for social and national liberation.

Pacifism distracts the masses from an active struggle against imperialism during periods of revolutionary upsurge. Under the conditions that emerged during World War I, Lenin regarded the pacifists’ abstract preaching of peace—pronouncements without any relations to the anti-imperialist struggle—as “one means of duping the working class.”

Communists, noting the inadequacy and the limitations of pacifism, have endeavored to unite all peace-loving forces—including pacifists who sincerely seek to prevent war—in a struggle against the threat of war posed by imperialism.
thats a slightly broad brush of pacifism.

there is nothing wrong to being opposed to war or violence when unnecessary. Yes, in order to stage a revolution, blood will possibly be shed. But must we fight everything with guns as opposed to words? Must violence be the way we go about everything? We are humans, we are not wild beasts.

Pacifism being a hindrance to a revolution is a negative way of looking about it. Publishing papers to sway the populace is nonviolent, but can absolutely help in the liberation of oppressed people. I think war or a violent uprising, when is utterly necessary and the last option, is ok. Yet it shouldn't be the go-to solution for everything.

its subjective, to be frank.

[piet11111]

pacifists need to realise that violence is a viable solution to certain problems.
in fact if only we would have resorted to violence sooner against hitler then countless lives would have been saved.

pacifism is an irrational mindset that unfortunatly is damaging the leftist movement because it causes poeple to leave opportunity's untouched.

[BobKKKindle$]

There is a further weakness of pacifism; sometimes a short period of violence in necessary to ensure that a more subtle form of violence does not occur over the long term, but for pacifists even this is illegitimate. Capitalism is a system that is based on various forms of violence, of varying degrees of intensity; even wage labour is violent as it is based on the threat of death (as a result of material hardship) if one is unwilling to assimilate into the system and sell one's labour power, and as such denies people the ability to make free choices.

[Vanguard1917]

Pacifism, when preached to the oppressed, is a reactionary and destructive force.

'An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves. We cannot, unless we have become bourgeois pacifists or opportunists, forget that we are living in a class society from which there is no way out, nor can there be, save through the class struggle and the overthrow of the power of the ruling class.'
- Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/01.htm)

[crimsonzephyr]

I look at pacifism as being very reasonable. A pacifist will not kill or end something directly perhaps, but they could die for the cause and inspire more and more people. People that stoop to violence do not inspire people as greatly. I also realize that pacifism will not work in all cases. In places such as Burma, where the public/majority have absolutely no say in anything.

[RNK]

There is no room for pacifism in a revolution. If you think otherwise, stfu and gtfo.

[Luís Henrique]

Well, we struggle for a world-wide communist society, and, as such, for the end of all wars. Which seems to make us pacifists of some kind, even if we realise that such end is not attainable except through violence.

Luís Henrique

[piet11111]

ghandi was a pacifist and the capitalist idolised him for it

that should tell you enough <_<

[spartan]

I hate Pacifism and Pacifism wont even be a reality after the revolution in our society as their could be an alien invasion for all we know and no amount of peace loving hippie bullshit will stop the aliens from eradicating us all (If that is their desire).

[Dros]

Pacifism is an example of how bourgeois ideology and morality reifies class systems and the capitalist super structure. For instance, pacifism as an ideology of proletarians is used to reduce their potential violence against the system.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -- Comrade Mao Zedong

[black magick hustla]

Pacifism as an ideological position is reactionary, but as a tactic due to the circumstances is not.

Insurrection, pacifism etc can be used to pursue certain goals under certain conditions. We need to be flexible, and not make them part of a political ideology.

In a similar vein. Fetishizers of violence are dangerous, probably worst than pacifists. Those who pursue violence as a crystalized part of their political ideology are not communists. They care more about blowing people up than the destruction of the "master-slave" dialectic.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:02 pm
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -- Comrade Mao Zedong
"You can do anything with bayonets - except sit on them."

Luís Henrique

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Unfortunately for pacifists everywhere their wish-washy dreaming won't wish away thousands of years of ingrained human behavior.

Conflict be it on a personal, political or military level is a natural part of human interation.

Ironically the very right to protest peacefully that is enshrined at the heart of pacifism is a right protected by the very same men with guns that pacifists want to wish away.

Civilisations function solely on the threat of violence by those in authority be it by the police, the military or the intelligence community. society is made civilised by the fear of the consequences of illegal (uncivilised) actions.

Pacifism is a dream because Civilisation is too uncivilised.

[Holden Caulfield]

Democratic pacifism led to the installation of the Franco government in spain, turning a blind eye to the massive fascist efforts to support the nationalists.
Democratic pacifism allowed Germany to reach such a dangerous and powerful level,

(Soviet 'pacifism' failed them both)

pacifism is never used for its own purpose, it is used a moral shield to allow events that the workers would object to take place