Anarcho Pacifism

pacifism is not realistic. Not fighting back usually means you get beat down more and more.

 

I wouldn't call Gandhi an anarcho-pacifist...

and pacifism doesn't mean abolishing all violence... it means abolishing all war and trying to avoid all unnecessary violence

for me it means trying to avoid all physical violence against people...
and yeah I'm all for that!

 

i'm all for self defense, and not picking fights, but beating the shit out of someone if they start one with me and i cant talk them out of it.

 

You gotta smash a few eggs to make an omlette , unfortunately

 

that's what i thought

 

Pacifism seems like a surefire way to fail, imo.
Non-aggression however, seems like a far better option to me.

 

It worked for Gandhi's goals.
But Gandhi wasn't trying to smash imperialism. Everything has its place and pacifism is definitely a worthwhile tactic whose application should never be considered a foolish thing. You have to admit, there's nothing more unsettling to the public than police beating the shit out of people who are just sitting there.
It just so happens though that our struggle calls for the complete dismantling of the incredibly violent imperialist state. Pacifism in our struggle would only, quite blatantly, lead to our death. In order to destroy the violent system, I'm sure we'll have to be more than a little rough.

That and it's hella fun breaking shit.

 

Actually Gandhi was shot dead.

The Indian nationalist movement was not non-violent either - guerilla warfare was carried out at the same time as Gandhi's activity so British withdrawl from India wasn't solely a result of nonviolence but by a combination of social unrest . India was also eventually partitioned (forming Pakistan). Hradly a success story. I still don't understand why people mythologise Gandhi or suggest he somehow won?

 

maybe because he made the british empire look so bad?

 

Pacifism? More like "treat me like a Welcome Mat...

 

I do not agree with pacifism. Violence is necessary in this world.

 

exactly

Malcolm X preached militance for a long while, "By any means necessary"
he switched his ideals to non-violence between blacks and whites and was shot dead.

Ghandi... shot dead

Martin Luther King Jr... shot dead

Jean Jaurès... shot dead

maybe you're seeing a theme here

 

dont forget john lennon, preached peace, shot dead

 

Pacifism is necessarily part of anarchism, but non-violence has very little to do with anarchism. No matter what the ideology or the goal, at some stage or another people are going to be called to defend such an ideology/goal throught he use of violence. Especially if there is, in the case of anarchism for example, an isolated case of an anarchist commune/collective/whatever which is faced with opposition and hostility from outside of such a commune/collective.

I think it would be ridiculous to think that Makhno's troops or the Catalan anarchists should have not taken up arms against the Red Army and the Carlists/Stalinists respectively. At some point or another violence will be necessary to defend any gain made.

Not an attack on anyone here, but that's just my 2 pence.

 

A world without the necessity of violence seems like nothing but an Utopia to me,

The way in which it is used is far more important,
If you have to defend yourself it's simply justified to use violence imo.

Not using violence is much better in most cases,
but that doesn't mean fighting back is wrong

 

well sometimes fighting back will only make everything worse, and then you hit a dead end, and fuck, you are either dead or in prison.
don't be so quick to imply that you want to die for something so obtuse, or die for anything for that matter, then that is the complete polar opposite of what most anarcho-folk should be about?

no, fighting back isn't so wrong, that is IF you can fight back to begin with.