If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
pacifism vs non violence
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
which do you prefer?
i'm staunchly into non violence, but not pacifism.
the difference being this:
John Lennon and Yoko Ono were pacifists, they didn't protest and demand talks and start up boycotts, they sat in bed and talked.
where as Gandi went out and marched and protested...
i think its very important to take an active aproach vs a passive one as i think that things that deserve my support also deserve my time and physical input...
your input please!
i'm staunchly into non violence, but not pacifism.
the difference being this:
John Lennon and Yoko Ono were pacifists, they didn't protest and demand talks and start up boycotts, they sat in bed and talked.
where as Gandi went out and marched and protested...
i think its very important to take an active aproach vs a passive one as i think that things that deserve my support also deserve my time and physical input...
your input please!
0
Comments
Non-violence - covers such a multitude. We change Governments through non-violence and I'm rather a fan of it compared to having bloody civil wars if we want to get Labour out. But it does fuck all use protesting outside the Burmese embassy - it's not going to make any difference except making you feel good. It's not like the Burmese junta are suddenly going to go, "Hang on there's a bunch of middle class-Brits protesting in London, let's introduce democratic elections"
The term is actually Civil Disobedience and yes, I believe it's much more effective than pacifism.
I'm not certain (who ever is) but I'm pretty sure pacifists have protested against wars and conflict through civil disobedience before.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/radical_history_review/v088/88.1mollin.html
Sometimes violence is needed for self-defence/defending others. However, the smallest violence possible should be used (in my view).
i'd tend to agree with that personally, i don't tend to support violence unless it is in self defence or protecting others
hmm i'm mixed when it comes to obscure ones, like say joing the international brigades in the 30s to protect the new spanish republic from franco since it was trying to prevent a facist dictatorship, but it was actively involinvg yourself in a civil war
Where it starts to get a bit weird is pre-emptive strikes. Have you seen that film where he builds a machine that predicts the future, and it predicted that there would be a nuclear war, but that was caused by America pre-emptively nuking all the other countries to stop them nuking it. It's a bit ridiculous sometimes.
I guess everyone justifies it differently in their own mind though.
Have you read much Mill?
The original poster has their definitions mixed up: Gandhi and indeed Martin Luther King were pacifists and they used nonviolent direct action, as adapted from Henry David Thoreau's advocation in 'On the duty of Civil Disobedience'. The idea that pacifism means 'do nothing' is therefore completely false, and I have no idea where you would have come up with such a thing, unless from your example of John Lennon who - duh - was a millionaire popstar - they don't tend to make great leaders or do much aside from assuring us that 'war is over'.
EDIT: I'm quite worried that anyone would misunderstand 'pacifism' so grossly. As I've said, pacifism and nonviolence are the same thing, but if anyone distrusts this, look it up, read up on Thoreau, Gandhi, King, nonviolent direct action... and just a quick look on Wikipedia (which I don't recommend for research, but it can be sound enough) brings up: Pacifists follow principles of nonviolence, believing that non-violent action is morally superior and/or pragmatically most effective. Some pacifists, however, support physical violence for emergency defense of self or others. This is basic stuff.
Actually I don't believe pacifism and non-violence are the same thing. pacifism is the unwillingness to use violence in any circumstances. If you believe that violence has a place (for whatever reason, even if as an absolute last resort to protect yourself or others) you are not a pacifist.
Non-violence is a tactic - not a philosophy - and is different from pacifism.
It doesn't make necessarily right, but in certain instances my own moral compass tells me 'direct action' might be justified.
You're right about the first point, I'm not sure about the second. Pacifism is one philosophy in a school of thought regarding non aggression. Some believe you should defend yourself no matter what the cost, some believe you should defend yourself if the cost is less than what is being saved, some believe that violent confrontation should be avoided at all cost. They all have different terminology, pacifism is the last one though. Often they're banded together as pacifism as people get non-aggression mixed up with it. The idea of invading another country to prevent attack I think is beyond non-aggression, but am not sure.
But really if you're a pacifist and believe that under no circumstances whatsoever should you strike another, even in self defence - why does that stop you protesting or other non-violent tactics as you put it
It doesn't stop you - but unfortunately waving a placard is fuck all use if an SS Panzer Regiment is barrelling down the street.
Well, the European police are more tooled up to deal with it as well.
I rather prefer the British view of voting out Government's we don't like the old fashioned civilised way, rather than whichever group of thugs can tool up the most gets to decide the policy of a democratically elected Government...
(PS the last direct action I can remember any French taking against their own foreign policy was trying to top De Gaulle for pulling out of Algeria, but I guess that's not what you mean)
That's true and one of the bigger criticisms of pacifism.
Having said that, somehow Ghandi managed to change things without raising a fist or firing a weapon. Makes you think sometimes we think inside the box. What about the demonstrator in China who stood in front of a tank parade. No doubt the secret police bundled him away, but would he have achieved more through violent confrontation?
Anyway, it's a massive debate I guess - what would happen in the middle east if the Palestinians laid down their weapons and marched through the borders into Jerusalem. Would, or even could the IDF slaughter all of them?
If there was a leader like Ghandi in the middle east I think we could see a peaceful future in our lifetimes. As things stand, shooting each other, eye for an eye - it's going to be the end of days before they reconcile their differences. And when you tot up scores, its not about who wins - but who loses. Everyone, on both sides. Families torn apart by death and destruction, children orphaned before they can speak - that's the real tragedy.
I don't know where I stand, I've always been a massive massive fan of Ghandi. But as I said above, if someone was going to hurt me or my family / friends / etc and I had a hypothetical gun, I would shoot them dead. I guess that's survival instinct though.
Didn't they have massive riots a few years ago because they didn't get enough welfare from the state. Basically the economy was dying because of inflation, it was being propped up by money from the EU and yet people were still losing their jobs - it came to a point the people had enough and took it out on each other and any symbol of the government.
Except he didn't. It's not like the British were forced out. India was still governable, we'd still be there if we wanted to be.
The Labour Party had a long standing committment to get out of India, from pre-Ghandi. Two world wars in defence of freedom of less powerful countries had left many of the British wondering if they shouldn't be pulling out of the Empire business, and let countries decide their own fate. And this committment was exxacerbated by the costs of governing India, costs which a country exhausted and close to bankruptcy could ill afford, especially with an ambitous, but expensive, programme of domestic reform at home.
If Ghandi hadn't existed the British would still have left. He crystalised a feeling, but he didn't actually make the British leave
Take British farmers for instance. They are certainly no strangers to protest action, but somehow it seems their French counterparts achieve a lot more through more disruptive actions.
Except what did he achieve apart from an iconic photograph. The regime he protested about is still there (and certainly whilst he showed non-violence not all the protesters did - we'll never know the true figures but they range from a dozen soldiers killed to over a thousand)
But the cost is often at the expense of their fellow citizens... You want to influence a Govwernment fine, lobby, demonstrate, write letters. But I have no sympathy once the line is crossed from peaceful protest to illegal activities - and certainly none where people are attacked and property destroyed. That's not democracy - it's the rule of the mob...
He made a point. China today =/= china of yesteryear. Yes, it's still a brutal regime but things are changing. In a world where you have no voice, protesting like that gave him a voice, even if only for a moment.
Still, I don't see how he could have achieved more through violence...