Can Pacifism be more destructive to overall well being

[Introcluse]

Pacificism is the general concept that you can rise to a higher level of consciousness by not participating in violence, violence begets violence, etc.

However I do rhink there's a line in being pacifist and allowing abuse to continue. In those circumstances, I support the annihilation of the abusive party until they either realise they have to stop or they have to be completely radicated. The pacifist approach in those circumstances will lead to greater doom and even the extinction.

The pacifist approach is promulgated mainly by those who aren't strong enough to survive so they promote this this concept for their own survival, but outside of the phasmagorical world it's not practical in order to acheive overall positive results when necessary.

discuss

.

[High Nigga Pie]

I agree, Pacifism is all good until people begin to try to rob you of you land, money, family, and life. But I also think that when a group of revoutionarys who plan to attack back their oppressors, must keep in mind that their main goal is pacifism. Once the war is over, they need to set in stone these ideals. Many revolutions or uprisings failed because they became powerful and do the same to others as they did to them. I also think a society should be prepared for an attack on their land, that doesn't mean they must use that assembled army all the time; most modern armies are assembled more for the excursion of other lands than the protection of its own.

[1871]

This is a really difficult question. I think it depends if the warfare tactics are effective.

Use the example of Gandhi - he waged a war against the colonial occupation of his country - used tactics of warfare - symbolic acts, use of media - but he did this in a non violent way. He and his followers could have used military force but they were fighting against a force that was military superior -apart from that he didn't believe in the use of violence anyway.
But no one could say that his tactics were not effective in reaching the objective he wanted to achieve - generally it worked.

When it came to using the same tactic against Nazi Germany it obviously didn't - it was a different set of circumstances and his advice to the Jews to use the same tactics was misguided and not applicable. It could only take military and bloody conflict to put to death a regime that was going to gas men women and children at the concentration camps at Bergen Belsen, Auschwitz and Treblinka and invade Poland and France.

Again you could refer in that instance to someone who was warlike and whatever his own imperial reactionary right wing politics was a brilliant war time leader - Winston Churchill - who, however, said that 'jaw jaw is better than war war'.

Military warfare is only of use if it achieves an objective without destroying the values it says it goes to war for. If it encourages further and continuing retaliation then it clearly isn't achieving its objectives and so it is ineffective.

[1871]

It could also be said that the military/war approach is only promulgated by weaklings who lack the strength of intelligence to use the means of diplomacy and conflict resolution. Hitler & co. were deeply insecure pro militarists who thought their survival depended on the warlike ethos which was directly opposed to pacifism in any shape or form. And they lost.

[seKo]

"The pacifist approach is promulgated mainly by those who aren't strong enough to survive so they promote this this concept for their own survival, but outside of the phasmagorical world it's not practical in order to acheive overall positive results when necessary."

I'll answer this from an anthropological view, Rousseau had this concept of state of nature, in which was contrary to Hobbes' view. He proposed that primitive man lived life in mutual aid and free of conflict, and this was due the theory that primitive man, although had no concept of language like we do today, managed to cooperate as long his needs were met. What were his needs? Food, shelther and procreation. And that's how men lived for a really long span of human history, they didn't destroy each other in hopes of taking each others property because he had no idea what private property was. Primitive man survived because he had the ability to adapt to his environment according to his needs. Could you say that they chose to be self-acclaimed pacifists or that there was no need for conflict as his needs were met?
Above all, the point I'm trying to make is this; from a theory to application to live life free of conflict is not the same thing as being a pacifist... You would be insane to really think that if you're life was threatened you could achieve safety if you took the non-violent path. Pacifists self-impose this view that they have no other choice but to remain that way in according to their beliefs i.e. Hinduism, Amish etc... But people who TRY to live their lives free of conflict have a choice because they're not trapped in this view to faith or religion. So a person who TRIES (emphasis on that word is important) to live life free of conflict has the choice as most human beings could actually get into a conflict being that conflict is a struggle (not whether or not you want an iPhone or a Blackberry) but a conflict that is necessary for individuation. This could mean that although you we're always in conflict for either a small part or a long part of your life, at least you made choices that had living without conflict element to it. I know it sounds like I'm contradicting myself because indeed this is a difficult topic to discuss or rather explain, but take in mind that even though you've made choices that avoided conflict, yet found conflict as a consequence - it is not the action but the intent behind that helps you to live your life "free of conflict".
If I don't make any sense please I urge you to correct me.

[shakur420]

I agree with what was said about Gandhi, what I know about at least. He was a pacifist because he believed in non-violence for himself at all times. He also advocated for others that even though he thought non-violence could tactically achieve the same goals as violence in most situations, that violence was a justified option for people. Apparently, he condemned people who hid behind "pacifism" because they were scared.

I'm not a big proponent of pacifism myself in most situations I've heard of, like under the conditions that most people live in today. They have every right to use violence against the rich, or like Churchill put it, the "rich men dwelling at peace within their habitations", the "satisfied nations" to whom the "government of the world must be entrusted to". I don't think there's any reason why people like that can't be ripped to shreds so that people's kids can eat, maybe go to school and shit.

I'm good, I rarely have any justification for violence as far as my life goes but there's something that makes sense to me, about tactics, I'm just not really sure how to feel about it. A lot of times, violence is justified, but tactically it's not going to work. Like the example of Gandhi that was given, or say the decision of the Occupy movement to, as a whole, not violently resist the police. So, though violence is justified and those who exercise that option cannot be condemned for exercising their right, is the justification nullified because tactically it's not the right move?

Palestinians have every right to resist with violence, say when someone comes to bulldoz their home. If they were UN members, they could use force to repel illegal incursions into their territory while waiting for the Security Council to act (the only time violence by states is allowed, and only on their own soil). But because they face a physically supperior force, violence is not a good choice, tactically. They will loose. In the arena of law and politics, they are stronger, so should they suffer while waiting for the decades long process of a political solution? Their leadership chose this option in the 70s, they're still waiting. They're still physically weaker so waiting and pushing for the law to be upheld is still tactically the better option. Again, I can't condemn those who choose either, they have every right to do what they want, but what would I do?

This is funny coming from you. My guess is, you're going to take this along the lines of "should we have done nothing and let gaddafi have killed all those people, like Syria now?", or some bullshit like that. The problem is, you believe in the right of the privileged to use violence against the poor in order to sustain their luxury and superiority, while you constantly say it's wrong for the poor to use violence back. It's alright for us to invade Iraq because, hey, our goon over there stepped outta line, and oh yeah, he was fucking up his own people, but it's wrong for Iran and Venezuela to bring ground troops to the U.S. and occupy the country to stop Wall Street from destroying the global economy, or Hamas to launch a "democratization" campaign in the U.S., you know, to stop the domestic violence against American citizens brought on by people like Obama, corrupted judges and cops, COs and biker gangs. That's wrong, of course, in that case, the crazy, God-believing, bearded guys should be passive. Us, on the other hand, we're allowed to use violence to make sure "things don't get worse", right? If the rich are allowed to use violence to prevent things from "getting worse", than bin laden is more than justified in destroying civilian targets to prevent things from "getting worse", from his perspective. So I don't really see how your position, whatever it may be, can be taken seriously. Your idea of pacifism or violence is clearly in favor of whatever the superior decide.

[1871]

SeKo - one correction - people in early civilisations did have a concept of private property. Archeologists and anthropologists find time and again implements which were deliberately destroyed by the owner when their use was up so no one else could use them. The tribal collective did have a hierarchy but there was far more emphasis on the tribal loyalty, therefore the collective by nature of their habitations.Money was also used.

Shakurs point is contradictory; those Palestinian gunmen who shoot dead children commit an act of violence on weaker parties ie; the children.
In that specific circumstances the gunmen are the 'superior' ie; stronger party using the same methods used by the parties they condemn and who oppress them.

children have no awareness of this.

Theres no defence for such actions.
similarly;

Quote:"should we have done nothing and let gaddafi have killed all those people, like Syria now?", or some bullshit like that.

it isnt incorrect to say that gadaffi was torturing and killing innocent people or that the regiime in Syria doesnt do the same. Its no use defending one form of reactionary violent terrorism because youre against the terrorism that it is directed against. The old IRA were well aware of this.

[seKo]

Ah remember I'm not the one advocating this condition for property, I was merely applying what Rousseau had theorized, and considering the fact that he lived in the 18th Century he was merely proposing what he knew about human nature at the time, sort of a quasi-proto-anthropological view to which I should've specified. I apologize for that.
But, consider this (as a mental exercise) that whoever came up with the necessary conditions for private property was an INSANE person, there are no preconditions that existed during the time of the primitive man to claim a piece of land saying that you own it and therefore should be used for monetary purposes. And let me be clear that having posessions is not the same thing as a private property I think you will find this evident in Karl Marx's work, he seperates this notion of difference between reclaiming private property and posessions. The theory doesn't really care for taking posessions out of peoples hands and redestributing them - it is private property in the mass-scale notion of industry, and wealth.

[shakur420]

^So you're saying that Marx distinguished between private property that generated capital/profit unfairly and simply owning property for your own basic needs? Any way you could tell me where to look, to find where he talks about this? I've been given the impression that private property is what constitutes Capitalism (lo) and that most marxist groups see state managers as the only ones who can legitimately control property. Anything about where I could find this in Marx's writings would be appreciated.

[1871]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wor...s/comm.htm

Cant disagree with most of what has been said here. Its obvious. Mankind can speak, people can sit down and talk. They can use their intelligence to consider the welfare of other people - mot play 'sides'. Bulldozing Palestinian homes is not using intelligence, it is not considering the lives of other people - its the use of force for the destruction of one people to benefitr another. It is evil.. The troubles in northern Ireland escalated in a tit for tat level of violence where two communities tried to blastand murder eachither. It was a no win situation. Eventually people realised this and there was a unanimity of a peace process. But it took the bombing of the city of London to really force a negotiation.
War is still engaged in, but by other means..

[shakur420]

Thanks man.

[seKo]

Shakur, I will find the section where this is mentioned, I appealed to this distinction between possession and private property during lecture, it's a 3rd year political theory class, and the prof is very provocative in his interpretation of Marx, but as to the exact page reference of the source I'm unsure of. The edition I have and that was read for class is "Karl Marx: Selected Writings" it is a Hackett edition fairly available and easy to find.
I'm working on an essay that involves Marx for this class, and this issue of property will come up, I will post it, if someone doesn't already - on it.