Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Anarcho Pacifism

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Probe, Mar 11, 2010.

  1. Probe

    ProbeExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    690

    1

    57

    Jan 30, 2010
     
    what are your personal views on Anarcho Pacifism?
     

  2. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 43 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    pacifism is not realistic. Not fighting back usually means you get beat down more and more.
     
  3. Probe

    ProbeExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    690

    1

    57

    Jan 30, 2010
     
    well...it kinda worked for gandhi....didnt it?
     
  4. statuliber

    statuliberExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    113

    0

    0

    Sep 13, 2009
     
    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!
     
  5. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 43 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    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.
     
  6. blacknred

    blacknredExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    145

    0

    3

    Oct 6, 2009
     
    You gotta smash a few eggs to make an omlette , unfortunately
     
  7. DrunkSquid

    DrunkSquidExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    167

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    that's what i thought
     
  8. Rathryn

    RathrynExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    0

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    Pacifism seems like a surefire way to fail, imo.
    Non-aggression however, seems like a far better option to me.
     
  9. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,338

    65

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    Fuck pacifism, anarchists are not hippies

    But please don't confond pacifism with non-violence. I am a non-violent person, but this does not means i won't react if i'm being attacked first. THIS is non-violence, and it doesn't excluse the use of weapons. (i.e. the zapatist army are non-violent)
     
  10. Harrison

    HarrisonExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    187

    1

    2

    Nov 11, 2009
     
    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.
     
  11. back2front

    back2frontExperienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    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?
     
  12. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 43 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    maybe because he made the british empire look so bad?
     
  13. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,338

    65

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 34 years old
    Canada United States
    And if i recall correctly, India is not part of the british colonial empire anymore because of Gandhi's action.

    But peoples seems to forget that even if it was a pacifist movement, there were still tens of thousands of death.
     
  14. AtomicKhaos

    AtomicKhaosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    116

    0

    0

    Nov 16, 2009
     
    Pacifism? More like "treat me like a Welcome Mat...
     
  15. Axehandle Mountain

    Axehandle MountainActive Member Forum Member


    41

    0

    0

    Feb 26, 2010
     
    I do not agree with pacifism. Violence is necessary in this world.
     
  16. SurgeryXdisaster

    SurgeryXdisasterExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    977

    1

    4

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    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
     
  17. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 43 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    dont forget john lennon, preached peace, shot dead
     
  18. xOutspokenx

    xOutspokenxActive Member Forum Member


    36

    0

    0

    Mar 7, 2010
     
    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.
     
  19. Milan

    MilanExperienced Member Experienced member


    92

    0

    0

    Mar 13, 2010
     
    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
     
  20. DrunkSquid

    DrunkSquidExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    167

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    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.
     
Loading...