Submitted by [deleted]
on June 11, 2019 at 8:00 PM in AnarchoPacifism
You must log in or register to comment.
In the context of systemic violence, pacifism can too often be consent to that structural violence.
If pacifism comes from a place of wanting individual purity, rather than an analysis of what is effective in reducing the amount of violence in the world faced by subaltern people, then it represents the worst tendencies of bourgeois liberalism. For example, "anarcho" pacifists that inform on their comrades in order to "make sure protests are safe for everyone" (a terrible thing that does happen, unfortunately, although I don't assert that all or even most anarchist pacifists are like this)
However I think what some other posters here are not giving credit to is the important role of anarchist pacifism in the legacy of resistance to institutional war. For example, the anti-nuclear movement in US & Europe 1980s. The band Crass is a good example of the cultural importance of anti-war anarchist pacifism to punk, which is certainly not a very christian thing lol.
It would be great to see anarcha-pacifist comrades organizing around issues of police brutality and the foreverwar. While i don't consider myself a pacifist, I would be happy to work with anarchist pacifists who are focusing on the real issues of violence in the world. Unfortunately, some very loud folks in that community take it upon themselves to try and become the Activist Police, which fucking sucks.
Crass is a terrible example as they sold out in the end and went after people who shared their music/message online.
Fair. I'm not as familiar with other anarchist pacifist bands, so I brought Crass up. but I will say that Crass is far from the only people that did this from that generation of punk. In a lot of ways, the entire punk subculture is this manufactured commodity which always had capitalists and social climbers part of it. Perhaps there is a better example that someone could provide, without this type of context to distract from my point that bands of Crass' political bent have been important cultural forces in anarchist spaces. idk
pretty much all the daoist stuff is pacifist afaik but I don't know why you'd wanna be a pacifist
Daoism spans a lot of texts/eras/writers, a substantial portion of which were profoundly anarchistic
Here's a history book on the topic, if anybody is interested
Links broken for me. Here’s the working one
you need to put a / before the f/
Counter-argument: There are too many anarcho-pacifists and far too many pacifists of all types in the world.
What about those of us who don't advocate for revolution at all because we realize it's a carrot on a stick?
Revolution is a fairytale about a fair maiden who is saved by a handsome prince. Grandpa Kropotkin reads it to us to help us sleep at night.
By looking with my eyes at the world as it exists.
It means Ziq is anti-communist.
How's that revolution working out for you? Making progress installing that socialist society?
Seriously, what will you do with this capitalist system
Seriously, what will you do with this capitalist system
I have no power to do anything with it. I'm not that big of a narcissist to imagine I can envoke "socialist society" on the world or to even imagine that "socialist society" would somehow reverse the doom we've wrought on our one and only habitat.
Worker managed factories won't save you.
I have no plan. I'm powerless to stop it. You're powerless to stop it. The mass extinction event has already happened and we're all just waiting for the tidal wave we created to hit us. You can pretend you have the power to push a tidal wave back if you want, but I'm not spending the little time I have left lying to myself and pretending Superman will swoop down and save us at the last minute because socialism.
If you pay attention to the news, ecological destruction has already happened. A staggering number of species have already gone extinct in the past 20 years because of human industry. The top soil we require to grow food has all but vanished. The pollinator insects have dropped dead en masse. Most plant life has either been bulldozed by industry or dried up and died due to climate change caused by that industry. The groundwater has dwindled to a fraction of its previous levels, and what's left has been poisoned by fracking and other industrial destruction. Vast tracts of land have become uninhabitable, forcing humans to migrate to less degraded lands, which then become over-populated as a result and quickly degrade also.
then what do you think we should do?
then what do you think we should do?
Try our best to stay alive while the world burns around us. Enjoy the little time we have left before it all turns to sand.
I do not think a purge is necessary, I am ok with pacifists existing, and I don't think any kind of backlash or gulaging of pacifists is called for...I guess in reading my original comment that was not clear.
I obviously don't agree with the logic of pacifism. However, I do think there is space for pacifists to exist in revolutionary or insurrectionary spaces - as long as they are truly accepting and supportive of a diversity of tactics, including violent acts. There will always be spaces and roles in building up dual power and in taking care of people, in supporting underground cells and in all kinds of other ways....again, as long as they are supportive of a diversity of tactics including violence.
What are your thoughts on that?
Then we are not going to agree on much...
I don't see any change happening without widespread violence. I see a bunch of liberals and their enablers, the pacifists, content to march with signs and call for politicians and the rich to have mercy on them. There will be no general strike. There will be no mass peaceful leftist movement that can defeat capitalism and the boot-lickers. The "means become the ends" is the words the cowards say to justify not taking action.
Can you explain to me why and how you think a series of non-violent revolutions will happen?
You seem to be arguing a bunch of different things depending on what I question you on. You started off saying it was a moral reasoning to be a pacifist, now you seem to be shifting to a short-term strategic decision. Which is it? Are there ever moral justifications for violent revolutionary acts? Or do you sit on the sidelines because you don't think your side can win?
I'm here to tell you that your military assessment is incorrect, and your moral theory is incorrect. I stand firmly by that assessment.
I don't think the military will support a revolution, I think the vast majority of them would fight to the last man to defend their mythos of empire. I don't need them to switch sides to win.
I absolutely think the military and police would fire on non-violent revolutionary actions that were actually accomplishing something - look at the history of effective strikes in this country and you will see a long history of police, national guard, and private mercenaries firing on non-violent protestors with very little backlash. This type of behavior has a long history, including recent history. If it's effective, it will meet with the violence of the state and capital.
The facts are that there has never been a successful peaceful revolution. There has never been a non-violent movement for change on any level that has been even moderately successful without a violent/militant wing. If you want your movement to be successful, you will need to embrace a wide diversity of tactics, including the threat of violence, and the effective self-defense of those people within the movement. Pacifism is the ineffective solution. It's the one being sold to you by your masters so that your revolutionary energy goes into something completely ineffectual and the system is never effectively threatened.
This entire response is just wrong on every level. I don't think I have the time or patience to teach you all of this stuff.....
Good luck in your liberal solutions. It's sad to know I have one less real comrade.
At least do some research before continuing to be ignorant.
Read Blessed is the Flame, then read about some people who were actually in real struggles like Franz Fanon, Dhouruba Bin Wahad, Assata Shakur, Kuwasi Balagoon, Georges Sorel, Russell Maroon Shoatz, Bonano, Robert Williams.
More advanced reading: Mary Nardini Gang, CCF, Baeden, Le Retif,
Did the viet cong need "military grade" equipment to beat the US military? No, they needed basic weapons. We have access to many more weapons as civilians than the VC did, or than the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan ever had.
Not being droned? By being an actual insurgency and melting into the general population. Which will increase the militancy of the police against the general public, which combined with increasing rhetoric of the left, will convert far more people to the need to defend themselves, and to eventually be willing to do whatever it took to take down the current system. Suppression doesn't work if the insurgency is sufficiently organized and isolated in independent cells.
Again, you seem to have no idea of what I'm talking about. An insurgency holds no territory. There is nowhere to send SWAT teams, bomb or drone.
I don't feel this is an effective use of time as you don't seem to be able to understand what I"m saying. Have fun on the sidelines, liberal.
There's only so much that can be written about inaction. It's a lot easier to write about doing stuff than to write about resisting doing stuff for reasons.
I respect the concept but i don't find it realistic. how do you feel about self defense? are you christian?
Thoreau and Tolstoy I guess? I'm not sure that Thoreau was exclusively pacifis,t and Tolstoy was a Christian, but that's what springs to mind.