Can pacifism ever succeed?

[belboid]

whilst it is not a definition of 'pacifism', I discovered last night that Costa Rica has no army at all, and hasn't had since 1948. All that time and no one has tried to invade, nor has there been anything like a civil war.

Having just found the fact out, I had to find somewhere to mention it.

 

[brasicritique]

Can pacifism ever succeed?

surely looking around these boards and the mass of problems in the world surley pacifism already has succeded

 

[durruti02]

I am an anarchist. I believe the idea of a non violent society is truly radical but I worry that violence might be needed in some circumstances. I remember reading Orwell's Homage to Catalonia where he rails against pacifism for breeding apathy and quiessence amongst the population. I want to believe in the hopes and claims of pacifism but something stops me from believing in it wholeheartedly. I guess the whole pacifist/violence debate is a process, something you can only develop true opinions about through revolutionary struggle.

hi shevek .. as a ex activist with class war and still a kind of supporter it might suprise you and some of them that i increasingly am against political violence

CW was interesting in that it always opposed individualistic violence and instead argued for a democratic popular resistance ' on the streets' violent or otherwise ..

i actually think though that you will NEVER defeat a state with violence .. ( orgreve!) it is what the state is prepared for .. the solution to me is to create the counter society/power democratically, in communities, in a way that the state can not understand nor intervene in ..

does that make me a pacifist? no, cos i do not renounce violence, but i do tend to reject it as a political tactic


re the jews and nazis .. pacifism was NOT what they were .. way more ocmplicated

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

By the time the Nuremberg laws (especially the Reich Citizenship law) were promulgated in 1935, German Jews knew they were no longer protected by law, and it was obvious to Jews everywhere that German Jews, as non-citizens, had none of the protections of German citizens.

Or perhaps hoped that something would be done to stop it.

The problem is also to do with the hierarchies within many of the Jewish communities in Europe.
Read something along the lines of Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem" and you'll come away pretty nauseated at how much, even 45 years ago, had been discovered about how, in some cases, our elders sold us out, how in others they "ratted" on anyone who might resist, even how, in some cases, they handed over birth records that helped the Nazis trace other Jews.
There was also, as Rachamim agreed, a streak of fatalism in some of the eastern European Hasidim that literally led to them going to their deaths without complaint, because it was HIS will.

It's so much more complex than just being about pacifism or a pacifistic attitude

Whatever the reasons, many jews went to their fate without resisting, which was my original point. The reasons for that can and probably will be debated on into the future.

 

[likesfish]

pacifism can be a more effective tactic than using violence.
especially if theres media about and the state at least pretends to give a shit about the rule of law. Especially if your going to lose regardless.
though takes more balls to take a beating without fighting back.
police fighting violent protesters looks good on TV.
police using force against peaceful protesters not looking good on TV.
if the state doesn't give a shit then forget it.

 

[TAE]

... without resisting ...

But pacifism, in the sense of a tactic, does not mean "without resisting".

 

[clusterflux]

My point with the whole Jesus thing was that if Jesus knew the future, he may have chosen the way he died in order to bring about the end of the Roman Empire. I don't agree that God is a violent psychopath, I see violence as incredibly short sighted and stupid and see God as neither of these. Everything that lives dies, violence is a needless waste of energy, most often practiced by those who are at the mercy of their own egos. The reason I call some people, who think of violence as a viable strategy, monkeys, is because they are so easy to manipulate, again, at the mercy of their own egos.
It would seem to me, the best way to take over a country is to make sure they are never aware they are being taken over. To struggle against anything, is to make a declaration. A far more effective strategy is to align best interests at intersecting points. A dual strategy of aggression from the outside while a nonaggressive force is fomented within a target country would seem the best strategy. Then, you make sure you lose and you give the world a good villain, something to concentrate on. That is exactly what some religions are into, fooling people, the more the merrier.
When I think of the technology I would use for this type of strategy, I would have to go to Egypt, and hypnosis. Its how many folks quit smoking nowadays, they lose weight too. It is always a total stranger who facilitates them doing this. The thing with hypnosis is, the more trust there is, the more intelligence there is, the more you can do.

 

[Shevek]

I read the introduction to pacifism as a pathology. It mentioned a woman who died making bombs. Surely releasing bombs in New York City is not the way to go about achieving societal change. You could harm innocent civilians. I suppose some could argue that the political violence of the IRA has been 'successful' in that it has allowed Republicans to be absorbed into the structures of power/government. After the Manchester bombings the British government could not allow any more wholesale destruction of city centres. Violence works. I am not sure I would condone it but then again to rule it out altogether, in a case of self defence, would be difficult.