Pacifism

[Era Might]

I think a case can be made that pacifism is more effective than war. For this discussion, I want to put aside the question of war as a doctrinal question. That is a separate issue.

Looking at pacifism purely in practical terms, I think it can accomplish true peace. It seems to me that the problem is not that pacifism does not work. The problem is that too many people will not commit to it. One objection to pacifism might be that it leads to civilian deaths, but so does war. The only difference is that in war, civilians in other countries die rather than civilians in our own country. Pacifism requires that we be willing to give our own lives for justice and peace.

Consider the Nazis. I think the Nazis could have been defeated with pacifism. Even the Nazis needed ordinary people to contribute to the economy, to make sure the trains ran on time, etc. If every ordinary German refused to cooperate with the Nazis, what could the Nazis do? They could have killed every German, but then they would no longer have a country.

What is more powerful: moral power or military power? I believe moral power is more powerful.

Furthermore, war perpetuates a cycle of violence. Violence leads to more violence. Once we commit to non-violent resistance, then we can create a cycle of peace. Pacifism is perhaps commonly perceived as cowardly, but I think true pacifism requires more courage than war does. To be a pacifist requires that you be willing to put your own life on the line, to fight with moral power rather than with violence. Look at the early Christians. They overcame their enemies, not by violence, but by being willing to give their own lives.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1855722' date='May 2 2009, 04:44 PM']I think a case can be made that pacifism is more effective than war. For this discussion, I want to put aside the question of war as a doctrinal question. That is a separate issue.

Looking at pacifism purely in practical terms, I think it can accomplish true peace. It seems to me that the problem is not that pacifism does not work. The problem is that too many people will not commit to it. One objection to pacifism might be that it leads to civilian deaths, but so does war. The only difference is that in war, civilians in other countries die rather than civilians in our own country. Pacifism requires that we be willing to give our own lives for justice and peace.

Consider the Nazis. I think the Nazis could have been defeated with pacifism. Even the Nazis needed ordinary people to contribute to the economy, to make sure the trains ran on time, etc. If every ordinary German refused to cooperate with the Nazis, what could the Nazis do? They could have killed every German, but then they would no longer have a country.

What is more powerful: moral power or military power? I believe moral power is more powerful.

Furthermore, war perpetuates a cycle of violence. Violence leads to more violence. Once we commit to non-violent resistance, then we can create a cycle of peace. Pacifism is perhaps commonly perceived as cowardly, but I think true pacifism requires more courage than war does. To be a pacifist requires that you be willing to put your own life on the line, to fight with moral power rather than with violence. Look at the early Christians. They overcame their enemies, not by violence, but by being willing to give their own lives.[/quote]


There have been quite a few studies into this which seem to confirm Orwell's hunch, non resistance to violence really only works in a sociaty with a more or less free press. T

[Hassan]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1855722' date='May 2 2009, 04:44 PM']Consider the Nazis. I think the Nazis could have been defeated with pacifism. Even the Nazis needed ordinary people to contribute to the economy, to make sure the trains ran on time, etc. If every ordinary German refused to cooperate with the Nazis, what could the Nazis do? They could have killed every German, but then they would no longer have a country.[/quote]


And how would the message be spread?

Massive non resistance programs require a great deal of networking and communication.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1855765' date='May 2 2009, 06:29 PM']And how would the message be spread?

Massive non resistance programs require a great deal of networking and communication.[/quote]
1) I think pacifism has to be more than a "program" or a movement. To be effective, it has to become a basic principle of civilization. Once society commits to non-violent resistance, then that principle will become ingrained in how we conduct ourselves.

2) I think local leadership is absolutely essential. Non-violent resistance has to begin at the local level. Mass media would certainly be helpful, but not essential. Also, as I said, I think non-violent resistance has to become something that we adopt as a social principle, not just something we adopt during times of crisis. We have to develop a culture of non-violence, so that people are prepared when times of crisis occur.

[mortify]

War is an evil that will hopefully come to an end one day

[Aloysius]

that day in which it comes to an end will be the Day of Judgment if Christ's words are to be trusted. not that we shouldn't work for it, but Christ said there would be wars until the end of time.

I don't have too in-depth of a response here... I think my reaction to your idea of pacifism being adopted as a social principal is to say that it's simply naive. if pacifism is taken to mean that one will never use violence based upon moral principal, then the only reason one could even adopt it as a social principal would be if all of humanity first stopped sinning (or at least breaking the fifth commandment, and stopped doing violent non-consensual versions of breaking the 6th). non-violent resistance does not stop the murderer or the rapist.

non violent resistance can stop the murderous/tyranical state, which is of course the point you're after, but nonviolent resistence really only stops the tyranical state when there are larger powers at play which do have violence. if there were a state which existed in a vacuum, and the whole of the populace decided to resist but they all decided to do so non-violently, the tyranical state would be unphased by it. it's only when non-violent protests draw the attention of other powers in the world that they truly effect change... non-violent resistance works if a neighboring country or a world superpower who has the power of violence (or economic sanctions) against you views it and supports it, that's when tyranical states tend to capitulate to non-violent protesters.

but non-violent movements which succeed purely because they changed the opinion of everyone in power? I'm not sure one could ever point to that. I think one can always reduce every non-violent successful protest against a truly tyrannical government to the threat of violence from other countries or from the more radicalized violent sectors of those causes which would incite violent revolution.

perhaps in true democracies it can happen that a non-violent protest succeeds on this or that issue, but to truly topple a ruling ideology pure non-violence can't work. even Christianity which grew by the seeds of the blood of martyrs wouldn't really have taken hold in the Roman Empire were it not for the sword of Constantine.

lol, I guess that was more in-depth that I predicted... I originally started posting with the intent to merely accuse your position of naivety but then I started blabbing on and on

[Nihil Obstat]

Wouldn't your idea only work if *everybody* committed to it? I don't have enough faith in humanity.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1856003' date='May 2 2009, 10:15 PM']but non-violent movements which succeed purely because they changed the opinion of everyone in power? I'm not sure one could ever point to that.[/quote]
I don't think non-violent resistance necessarily has to change the opinion of those in power. Particularly when you're dealing with brutal dictators, that's hard to do. But I think what non-violent resistance can do is show that the real power belongs to those who are willing to exercise moral power, rather than violent power.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1856003' date='May 2 2009, 10:15 PM']even Christianity which grew by the seeds of the blood of martyrs wouldn't really have taken hold in the Roman Empire were it not for the sword of Constantine.[/quote]
This is something I want to study more. But in some ways, I think it can be argued that the use of violence in the service of the Church diminished the Church's true power, which was moral and spiritual power. I understand Church history is complex, so I don't want to make any sweeping claims about it (as I said, it's something I want to study more). But I tend to interpret the modern history of the Church as the beginning of a return to the model of the early Church, when the Church was not yet an "institution" in the way that it would become. I tend to think that the Church is most powerful when she has the least "earthly" power.

[mortify]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856095' date='May 2 2009, 10:24 PM']I tend to think that the Church is most powerful when she has the least "earthly" power.[/quote]

Interesting point

[Era Might]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1856090' date='May 2 2009, 11:22 PM']Wouldn't your idea only work if *everybody* committed to it? I don't have enough faith in humanity.[/quote]
Not everybody, but yes, pacifism would require large-scale commitment. That's the difficulty.

I think war could be compared analogously to divorce in the Old Testament. Our Lord said that Moses permitted divorce for the hardness of the people's hearts.

War allows ordinary people to continue living morally mediocre lives, because they can designate certain people (soldiers) to risk their lives. If we are going to develop a culture of peace, then it requires moral courage, a willingness to sacrifice our own lives, rather than someone else's life. War implicitly requires a willingness to sacrifice the lives of civilians in other countries. Pacifism requires that we be willing to sacrifice our own lives.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856109' date='May 2 2009, 10:36 PM']Not everybody, but yes, pacifism would require large-scale commitment. That's the difficulty.

I think war could be compared analogously to divorce in the Old Testament. Our Lord said that Moses permitted divorce for the hardness of the people's hearts.

War allows ordinary people to continue living morally mediocre lives, because they can designate certain people (soldiers) to risk their lives. If we are going to develop a culture of peace, then it requires moral courage, a willingness to sacrifice our own lives, rather than someone else's life. War implicitly requires a willingness to sacrifice the lives of civilians in other countries. Pacifism requires that we be willing to sacrifice our own lives.[/quote]
Are there enough good people to overcome to mediocre? If not, then all that happens is the righteous sacrifice themselves and violence will continue.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1856112' date='May 2 2009, 11:38 PM']Are there enough good people to overcome to mediocre? If not, then all that happens is the righteous sacrifice themselves and violence will continue.[/quote]
As a society, we have to have ideals, principles, etc. For example, we expect society to respect the meaning of human sexuality. It's not easy to be chaste, but that is what we expect of society as a whole. We live in an imperfect world, so there will always be sin. But we can still develop a society where a virtue such as chastity is deeply ingrained.

In the same way, non-violence is not easy, but I think we can develop a society that is committed to fighting injustice through non-violent means. We need moral courage to do so.

[Lounge Daddy]

I think there is something to what you are suggesting, Era.

One of the things that intrigues me about [url="http://agorism.info/"]Agorism[/url] is that it sees counter-economics as the best way to combat an aggressive State. (Granted that Agorism also sees all State systems as aggressive.) But Agorism is largely a form of pacifism in action. And the Markets (the Agora) are wildly powerful, more so than guns and bombs when properly used.

Look at the Soviet Union. While countries that took a stand against the Soviet Empire to prevent further spread, it was counter-economics (ie, the Black Market) that crippled and toppled the Soviet Union.

It was the regular people, buying and selling and working every day in the Black market system. People had disposable income, but employment and purchases were not happening on the official State market. After a while, the system caved right in.

The Cold War wasn't won with guns, it was won with economics. And Governments didn't do it. People wanting freedom did it. It was all on the unofficial (and illegal) Black Market.

Of course, I wonder how many people were motivated by ideals of resistance. Probably most Soviet citizens operating on the Black market were simply impatient with the State-run shops and wanted a good item at a good price. Or wanted a good job at a good wage. But the effects were the same regardless.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Lounge Daddy

[Winchester]

Tolerance for not fighting runs out when the bad guys decide to kill family. Enough people get killed, the movement fails. Yes, if enough people commited, the bad guys would lose if the pacifists' tolerance for atrocities didn't run out before the bad guys' stomach for committing them did. Coercion works, and I'd run a train on time if someone threatened the life of my daughter if I didn't. Then I'd get her out of Dodge ASAP. Then I'd come back and kill until there were no more bad guys.

I'd rather kill them than see innocents killed.

Pacifism won't work on a personal level, either. For instance, against criminals.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1856144' date='May 3 2009, 12:03 AM']The Cold War wasn't won with guns, it was won with economics. And Governments didn't do it. People wanting freedom did it. It was all on the unofficial (and illegal) Black Market.[/quote]
Actually, it seemed to be a combination.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856152' date='May 3 2009, 12:08 AM']I'd rather kill them than see innocents killed.[/quote]
Innocents are killed in every war. As I said, war implicitly requires a willingness to sacrifice other innocent people's lives, rather than our own.

I would rather sacrifice my own life, than the life of another innocent person.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856152' date='May 2 2009, 11:08 PM']Tolerance for not fighting runs out when the bad guys decide to kill family. Enough people get killed, the movement fails. Yes, if enough people commited, the bad guys would lose if the pacifists' tolerance for atrocities didn't run out before the bad guys' stomach for committing them did. Coercion works, and I'd run a train on time if someone threatened the life of my daughter if I didn't. Then I'd get her out of Dodge ASAP. Then I'd come back and kill until there were no more bad guys.

I'd rather kill them than see innocents killed.

Pacifism won't work on a personal level, either. For instance, against criminals.[/quote]


I think the problem is that non violent movements can work, and even be the best option, in a very narrow range of circumstances. The problem comes in trying to apply a tactic well designed for the American sourth in the 60's and acting like it can be a general plan for victory.

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't an idiot, and he knew just what he was doing when he went into Bill Connor's terratory. The civil rights movements as led by kind because while the police could be thuggish, threy couldn't open up a 50 on the protestors and a there is a free press.

My Latin teacher was a Embasy Guard in Romania and that's just what the Romanian Army did when their student's protested, they wasted them. Yes it was dangerous to be an activist in the south, but how many were lynched in the south from 1865? About 3000 I think. That's horrid but a very small percentage ove more than a century.

King could count on Connor doing all sorts of aweful things to him and his protestors, and the people who marched there were much braver than I, but they wern't going to be slaughtered in mass numbers and the nightly news was going to put up all sorts of heartbreaking coverage of a pretty woung black woman having her hair ripped off by a high power water hose.

The political climate was ready to go against that sort of brutality, the press was there to get them the marriage, and the violence, while shocking, was not enough to kill on mass numbers.

How would that have gone for the Jews who protested peacefully in Germany?

The Germans would have slaughtered them like dogs in the street and there would be no tragic coverage on the evening German news.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856152' date='May 3 2009, 12:08 AM']Tolerance for not fighting runs out when the bad guys decide to kill family. Enough people get killed, the movement fails.[/quote]
How did the early Christians deal with their families being killed? They all understood that they were dying for a reason.

I think wars are fought, ultimately, because we are afraid to die. We decide to sacrifice other innocent people's lives instead of sacrificing our own. Why are we afraid to die? Why do we not have the moral courage to risk our lives for what is right?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856155' date='May 3 2009, 12:10 AM']Innocents are killed in every war. As I said, war implicitly requires a willingness to sacrifice other innocent people's lives, rather than our own.

I would rather sacrifice my own life, than the life of another innocent person.[/quote]
No, war doesn't. Good soldiers engage the enemy--sometimes innocents die accidentally. (modern means aside) and engaging in combat takes a certain willingness to die. Sacrificing someone else's life would entail using them as cover--you're mixing result with intent. You're leaving out the lives soldiers are actively trying to preserve. Which they do.

I get the idea behind citizens not cooperating. The bad guys will intentionally kill innocents. They will use many means to ensure citizens cooperate. They will do this until citizens cooperate and the ordinary will eventually do as the government says. Nazis would simply have killed people until the people capitulated. And they would have because the kind of backbone it takes to let your children or spouses be executed or tortured to death to pay for your noncooperation isn't in everyone. It ain't in me. Killing's easier, I reckon.

Would you refuse to cooperate to the point of watching your own children executed? This is one of the tactics used by tyrants. Would you be willing to watch that? After you're gone, would your neighbor? And so on.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856167' date='May 3 2009, 12:20 AM']How did the early Christians deal with their families being killed? They all understood that they were dying for a reason.

I think wars are fought, ultimately, because we are afraid to die. We decide to sacrifice other innocent people's lives instead of sacrificing our own. Why are we afraid to die? Why do we not have the moral courage to risk our lives for what is right?[/quote]
You think soldiers don't risk their lives? Really? You're in a rapid descent into insanity--the face masks have dropped from the ceiling.

We have armies because we are afraid to die. They fight wars for us for their own motivations, but fear of death isn't why soldiers fight (unwillingness to be slaughtered, perhaps, but there are better ways to avoid death than joining the military).

Yes, early Christians were perfectly right being martyrs. No argument. Killing evil people is also morally acceptable. Protecting the innocent is also morally acceptable. I ain't the type to let them kill. Thought this was about the workability of it. I argue it won't really work the way you think it will. Not now.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Winchester