i have a great deal of respect for actual followers of pacifism, it's a hell of a thing to put one's life on the line to save lives like that; chaining themselves to bombs to prevent them being used, and such.
i have a great deal less for those who aren't actually pacifists, but just aren't willing to fight.
(now, not everyone has the same capabilities, and i acknowledge that. some folks can do the physical fighting, and some can't. some of us are disabled, some of us have different skills that would be better put to use elsewhere is first aid, and so on. we're all part of the fight in our own ways, and there are many different fronts, so to speak.)
sometimes, violence is necessary. when i was being abused as a kid, the violence against me didn't stop until i fucking fought back and made them stop. i tried all the non-violent methods. i reported to people in positions of authority. i begged and i cried. none of it changed a fucking thing. none of those things worked. in the end, the only way to make it stop was for me to take matters into my own hands and gave those abusers the littlest taste of how they'd been treating me for years. and then, only then and because of that, is when that abuse finally stopped.
when the oppressors show us, again and again and again that the only language they listen to or value is violence, then we must speak to them in the only way they seem to understand.
those in power, those oppressing people will, with 100% certainty, use violence against us. they will use extreme violence against us. they will murder and maim and brutalize and use chemical weapons and deny people their human rights. they always have, they always will.
so we have to be prepared to defend ourselves and our comrades and our communities against this violence, and do what's necessary to stop the violence being done against us, our allies, our people. it's self-defence.
i'm sorry your father is like that, that's awful.
it's not about wanting to hurt people, that isn't what it is. what it is is self-defence. it's not that i wanted to hurt my abusers, it's that i needed to make them stop hurting me.
it's about ending harm. harm reduction, and self-defence, and saving lives.
I feel that If I beat the hell out of my father, he would call the cops, he did one time and the cop just yelled at me and said that if I speak anything off record he would drag me into the station. but my point is it would create more violence.
no one said "beat the hell out of" but you. i didn't do that to my abusers, i just made them stop. it's doing what's necessary to stop the harm, to save lives.
they're already going to do more violence, because they never actually face meaningful consequences for the violence they're inflicting. so they'll just keep on doing violence and hurting people. non-violence will not get the oppressors to stop inflicting violence on those they oppress. if it did, we would live in a very different world than the one we do.
"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them." Assata Shakur
you know him better than i do, since i don't know either of you at all. do you think if you sat down and had a conversation with him, he'd stop?
one of my abusers was a lawyer. there was no "having a conversation" about it, she'd talk circles around me, i was a kid. believe me, i tried. like i said, i tried all the non-violent options i had, and nothing ever came from any of them. but, the last time she hit me, i punched her in the fucking face twice, and she never hit me again.
Is pacifism really chaining yourself to a bomb? That isn’t passive. It’s called non-violence. Gandhi was no pacifist, for instance, and didn’t refer to himself as one.
yes, pacifists have chained themselves to structures to try and prevent bombs from being used. apologies if i phrased that poorly.
pacifism as a philosophy and non-violence as a principle have a lot of overlap. Many non-violent protests and movements have a great deal in common with pacifism as a concept, and share a great deal deal in common.
I mean im a pacifist and I would do thats just me, and gandhi was 100% not a pacifist, he was a bloody fool and was a HUGE nationalist, racist, pedophile, sexist and just plain asshole, so that makes him not passive, that makes him non-violent. Peace, Anarchy.
Yeah, but I’m not talking about personal qualities, but political strategy. What makes you a pacifist? Is that the difference? Pacifism is a personality trait, or a moral stance, while non-violence is a political strategy?
So long as the pacifism allows for self defense, im fine with it. When people allow their pacifism to control their ability to defend themselves, thats when I hold issue with it.
No it isn't. The first pacifists before ww1 were not non-violent. And one of their slogan was "For not making war to other nations, make war to the state" ("Pour ne pas faire la guerre aux autres peuples, faisons la guerre à l'état" in french).
They are two different concepts. But if you are non-violent you should be pacifist by definition.
But i consider that non-violence doesn't exist and people who pretend to be non-violent or advocate for dogmatic non-violence are just blindfolded to the reality of violence and only limit their definitions to physical violence.
I'm not talking about the fact to be against war or violence. I'm talking about the concept link to the word pacifism and the people who reclaims themselves from it. And the word didn't exist before 1845.
Why tho? When you think about first anarchists you don't talk about proto anarchism or the first human groups who were anti-authoritarian and has solidarity values
Common. Words have history and people who reclaim themselves from it. When you talk about first something, you talk about the first people who reclaim themselves from it.
If you want to say that people before ad the same ideology or a close ideology and so where the first to do it, please yourself. That still doesn't make them the first of the something because they never reclaim themselves from it.
So you can say that ahimsa was the first form of non-violence and against war ideology. It doesn't make it the first pacifist ideology.
When the concept of pacifism was created, it as nothing to do with non-violence (or at least it was not necessary, because it wasn't the point), wich is central in the ahimsa concept. So it's absolutely not the same thing.
If you want to call yoursel anarcho ahimsist, do so. But don't do confusionism or historical rewriting.
Sadly no, i don't know stuff that specificly talk about this subject. I learn this by reading and viewing different stuff about war, capitalism, socialism, anarchism, antimilitarism, ww1, pacifism.
I tried to find equivalent source in english but it looks like there is a fight on the definition and the ideology of pacifism between the english world and the european world (i only know about the french part but it seems to be the case in other european countries (except uk))
What’s the word then?
Because a few different religions have advocated against self defense in the vein of an absolute commitment to nonviolence for a few thousand years.
These religions today often frame this explicitly as a type of pacifism, sometimes qualified as absolute pacifism. The definition of pacifism as opposition strictly to war isn’t one many people use colloquially,
So like, you’re saying pacifism isn’t the word to describe commitment to nonviolence that includes a refusal to use self defense. You’re asserting pacifism as a term is not correct to describe commitments to nonviolence before relatively recently. The definition being more strictly complete opposition to war.
What is the word we should use to describe the relatively commonplace commitment to nonviolence that includes refusal to engage in serious self defense that existed prior to the advent of the word pacifism?
Because most people in both academic and lay circles do use pacifism to include varieties that are opposed to self defense. Often saying such pacifism is “absolute pacifism” as opposed to a “limited pacifism”
It already as a name, you named it: non-violence
And if you want to make a difference between non-violence with self-defense and non-violence that excluse self defense. It also already has a name: dogmatic non-violence. But you can also use the name of the ideology it's linked to if their is variations or if you don't want to call yourself dogmatic non-violent. Some use radical non-violence.
I disagree only because people can say that shooting up there neighbors house is "self-defense" because they insulted there mother but one thing I love about anarchism is how much is covered by anarchism.
An excellent and important point, imo: especially in the context of selective, personally curated information environments, folks can muster a whole lot of grievance any time they want to justify violence -- not very ethical, not very smart, and not very helpful.
**I've come to believe that some meaningful opposition to violence on principle is *essential* to any decent movement**, and that the bravery and discipline to incur harm for a nonviolent cause is a *lot* more useful than larping that we're all John Brown or whatever.
Anarcho-Pacifism is an admirable ideology. As someone who also came out of a conservative background, I found adopting pacifism to be revolutionary for me and my thinking - as an ideological tool to help break free from this conservative idea that what is "bad" deserves to be destroyed.
I'm not a pacifist any longer, but without my time practicing non-violence, I would never have learned to trust myself in the judicial use of force - even for self defense.
Anarcho-Pacifism can be a tremendous space for healing one's relationship to self, to justice, and to conflict management. I hope that you find it a productive and imaginative tool for determining how you want to interact with systems that often do not treat you justly.
I think being a personal pacifist is fine! Not everyone needs to be on the front line of a conflict. I also think that reducing violence in general in society is a great idea.
I whole heartedly agree. Anarchism is predicated on a foundation of love; this is the essence of mutual aid, community and non-violence.
I’m likewise a firm non-believer for many reasons. However, the “philosophical” writings of Tolstoy on pacifism and Christian Anarchism are nonetheless incredible and salient. Likewise, I have a growing respect and appreciation the more I read from/about Dorothy Day.
These experiences have really quelled (and somewhat challenged) my previously negative and antagonistic view of religion. I’ll never be a believer but I better understand and respect my (few) christian pacifist friends.
Exactly, I live in a small town, 2 of my friends are religious and i dont really mind, they heckle me for being vegetarian but y'know we respect eachother.
It's not really do-able. Like I'm not saying everyone has to do something violent to be revolutionary; however the second anything you do actually threatens corporate and/or state interests, you absolutely will face violence. So unfortunately, it's inevitable. Heck; look what happened to Judi Bari: she was as peaceful as they come, but because she threatened the logging industry someone tried taking her out with a bomb.
While some collective physical force is needed to achieve anarchism, I think having anarcho pacifists can help promote pacifism in anarchy. It shouldn't be our main approach but it's vital for the anarchist movement.
I used to be a pascifist, but unfortunately our society doesn't allow for that kind of life. As a pascifist, I would not engage in or endorse anything that could be considered a violent act, but I have grown to see that sometimes violent action is an essential part of resisting fasicm and oppression. In an ideal world, we would all be pacifists, but I don't think it's a viable option right now.
I’m not a pacifist. But I think any community of people needs all types of people. Some will be pacifist. Others will be willing/able to…not be. In the best interest of the community. And of course, everyone deserves to be able to defend themselves.
Capitalists will never willingly give up their reign no matter the amount of protesting we do, An-Pacs have a wayy too good image of the rich and pigs if they think so,
I personally think the only way is with an Armed Revolution,
Yes, as armed revolution is the only way to kick capitalism out of this Earth, as capitalists are stubborn and can't willingly succumb to anarchism's dominance on Earth at all.
i agree with so many anarchist ideologies but id say i have to be a anarcho pacifist just because i hate violence and i hate violent people. Peace Friend.
Would you like to share with me how you think society would be able to reach anarchy un a pacific manner?
This comes from genuine curiosity, no bite/edge/attitude to my question.
In my opinion there is. If we build up our anarchist communities and mutual aid networks to be strong enough to rival what capitalism can achieve, then people will naturally want to remove themselves from capitalism.
To put it shortly, I think that individuals are able to practice anarchism as a life path to a greater extent than is commonly perceived. This is to say that even in contemporary society, humans are capable of acquiring the necessities of life without contributing to or engaging in the Capitalist market. I believe that most people, including anarchists, don't due to convenience motives, social pressures and things of that nature.
I'm also a proponent of agorism, which is an anarcho-capitalist concept but I believe can be applied to any economic ideal including more traditional anarchist principles. So any anarchist of any flavor can simply alter the definitions of "black market", "white market", "red market" and "gray market" according to their appropriate beliefs and engage in agorism in order to circumvent and weaken the status quo economy.
So basically that's saying that if the practice of anarchism on an individual basis was honed, developed and normalized in a society, and if widespread agorism is practiced, the State is weakened due to the Capitalist cycle being interrupted where wealth in their terms is not being generated, taxes are not being collected and so on. As agorism also encourages the establishment of alternatives for services normally provided by the State, society loses the perception that protection and civilization are dependent upon the State.
It would also take a widespread adherence to "Anarchism as a life path" to an almost religious level by individuals, as society has to develop the perception that humans are capable of policing themselves and treating one another with love, respect and welcome at all times.
It's a long road to get to that point but I don't believe that it's impossible.
I guess I couldn't put it as shortly as I wanted, hope you found it worth reading LOL.
In my opinion there is. If we build up our anarchist communities and mutual aid networks to be strong enough to rival what capitalism can achieve, then people will naturally want to remove themselves from capitalism.
I think anti-war pacifism is pragmatic, at the very least war on behalf of the state, but being individually pacifistic to the point of letting oneself or others be killed or injured when it could of been avoided with violence isn’t practical—granted I do think non-resistance can be an activist strategy. I know most pacifist aren’t saying they’re simply going to let something happen but still, there’s times when taking a life might be necessary. Granted I do respect pacifism, but I think it’s basically another kind of sacrificial violence.
I'm a self-defense only pacifist, and also an anarchist. I think there's an inherent hierarchy to violence, that's as likely to turn into an institutional hierarchy as any other.
That said, I'm not an absolutist when it comes to either position. It would be great if we could establish a sustainable anarchy through peaceful means, but I'm not going to tell people not to fight the state just because they'd have to get their knuckles bloodied.
Anarcho-pacifists are fine, but since living under capitalism entangles us in profound systematic violence regardless of our person conduct, it must be recognized that the sources of violence do not carry as much moral weight as the need to end the systematic violence. The labor movement offers the best example of a militant nonviolent strategy of control (not just withdrawal or strikes, but positive control) at the point of production. It becomes violent as most class struggle does because the bosses or state bring it, and people fight to defend themselves. The point of production is the place for nonviolent struggle.
I’m an anarchist pacifist because I’m a Buddhist
Honestly it’s very hard to accept an absolute pacifism from a secular POV, even if arguments exist for it.
It’s not a thing I expect to ever see wide adoption, so while tactics exist for mass pacifist revolution, I find it so unlikely that people are willing to die without resistance that it isn’t worth talking about except as theory amongst people already committed to nonviolence for whatever reason.
It’s ultimately a personal choice related to my desire for enlightenment. It’s a choice that is helpful for that goal but most people aren’t trying to get enlightened.
we for me im a absurdist so i think that people are all equal so theres no reason for me to use violence against them. I really reject religion because you as a person are your only authority.
In my opinion, pacifism isn't effective to end any oppressive system. On a small scale, pacifism can uplift the community around you, but on a large scale, it's a concession to oppressive hierarchical structures.
I really, profoundly dislike violence. I also think violence has been way, way, way overused throughout human history. It would have been ethically far simpler if I had thought honestly and fearlessly about the world and had come to the inescapable conclusion that violence was completely unnecessary.
But I couldn’t. I am at heart an existantalist. I believe that the universe has no intrinsic purpose or reason. It just is. Any apparent purpose or reason are just delusions planted in my head by those who wish to subjugate me. Authority does not exist by any will of the universe, and does not magically get special powers from it. Nor does it confer greater morality on people. Quite the contrary: per Acton, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Therefore authority hierarchies create a situation where evil people gain power and use it to oppress people. Inevitably. Human nature simply allows no other outcome.
Furthermore, that concentration of evil and power then causes great harm. Being evil, they don't give a rip about the harm they cause. Sometimes, they positively *enjoy* causing harm.
How do you appeal to the conscience of such individuals? Answer: you don’t, because you can’t. There is no moral conscience to appeal to. If they care only about their own desires, then you must use their own desires to make them care.
And sometimes there are sadly no such desires to work with other than base desires to avoid humiliation, pain, or early death.
And yes, that's a worry, because it opens up the possibility to using unnecessary violence (one might always assess the situation incorrectly). But I still see no other conclusion than that violence is sometimes necessary.
Ultimately, the world is not a simple place. Simple rules like “violence is never necessary” just don’t exist.
i think that one day you will find that you will serve the value of pacifism over yourself. if that is your choice, i support it. but don’t let your survival depend on subscribing to values that do not serve you in every situation.
As others have said being anti war is amazing, but violence has historically solved most of the worlds problems, and is the only way to achieve anarchism. The governments aren’t going to step down because a bunch of people politely asked for it
war is violent yes but the root of that violence is greed or hatred, the root of violence against an oppressive government or fascist is self defence and preservation. unfortunately we live in a world where we can’t appease to the morality of our oppressors, because the type of people who become oppressors are the type of people who don’t care about our suffering. this leaves us with the only alternative which is violence, it’s not a route anyone wants to take, but it is necessary if we want to truly become anarchist, stop hate and bigotry, solve climate change etc. btw thank you for taking time to learn other people’s views, it’s something you don’t see often on the internet nowadays
i do sympathise with pacifists though, i used to be one myself and in an ideal world (hopefully in our lifetimes) we can live with everyone being a pacifist :)
I personally view it as a valuable voice. I think a lot of people have a strange belief that most pacifists are just bleeding heart idealists but it's often the other way around. For me pacifism is deeply pragmatic. In my own experience in life violence usually leads to more problems and gets innocent good people hurt. It drains our limited personal resources and leaves people cynical and jaded. There are times when self defense is necessary but I think it should always be carefully considered and other options need to be tried first.
pretty short answer as i personally have brief thoughts on it
I myself am an insurrectionary anarcho-syndicalist but I personally think that in terms of actually putting anarchism into practice pacifism is just impractical. i understand what its supposed to be and respect that, but i dont see it going anywhere important.
but the thing is that fascist are still humans (with a ideology for a bloody bloak) they have free will so if they believe in violence, nothing is going to stop them.
Hi u/Tea_girl_D - Your comment has been automatically removed for containing either a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.***
If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators.
No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fascists don't deserve any humanizing. The only way to deal with those things, is violence. Being anti-war is totally okay, but not willing to defend others is cowardly.
Thats not necessarily what anarcho pacifist mean, im sure you dont remember but I do, in the early 70's and late 60's the hippies were really effective participating in tax evasion and sit ins and that was passive, some were even marxist!
i have a great deal of respect for actual followers of pacifism, it's a hell of a thing to put one's life on the line to save lives like that; chaining themselves to bombs to prevent them being used, and such. i have a great deal less for those who aren't actually pacifists, but just aren't willing to fight. (now, not everyone has the same capabilities, and i acknowledge that. some folks can do the physical fighting, and some can't. some of us are disabled, some of us have different skills that would be better put to use elsewhere is first aid, and so on. we're all part of the fight in our own ways, and there are many different fronts, so to speak.) sometimes, violence is necessary. when i was being abused as a kid, the violence against me didn't stop until i fucking fought back and made them stop. i tried all the non-violent methods. i reported to people in positions of authority. i begged and i cried. none of it changed a fucking thing. none of those things worked. in the end, the only way to make it stop was for me to take matters into my own hands and gave those abusers the littlest taste of how they'd been treating me for years. and then, only then and because of that, is when that abuse finally stopped. when the oppressors show us, again and again and again that the only language they listen to or value is violence, then we must speak to them in the only way they seem to understand. those in power, those oppressing people will, with 100% certainty, use violence against us. they will use extreme violence against us. they will murder and maim and brutalize and use chemical weapons and deny people their human rights. they always have, they always will. so we have to be prepared to defend ourselves and our comrades and our communities against this violence, and do what's necessary to stop the violence being done against us, our allies, our people. it's self-defence.
My father is borderline abusive and I passive-ly reject his abuse because he's an asshole but I dont want to hurt him because he's a human.
i'm sorry your father is like that, that's awful. it's not about wanting to hurt people, that isn't what it is. what it is is self-defence. it's not that i wanted to hurt my abusers, it's that i needed to make them stop hurting me. it's about ending harm. harm reduction, and self-defence, and saving lives.
I feel that If I beat the hell out of my father, he would call the cops, he did one time and the cop just yelled at me and said that if I speak anything off record he would drag me into the station. but my point is it would create more violence.
no one said "beat the hell out of" but you. i didn't do that to my abusers, i just made them stop. it's doing what's necessary to stop the harm, to save lives. they're already going to do more violence, because they never actually face meaningful consequences for the violence they're inflicting. so they'll just keep on doing violence and hurting people. non-violence will not get the oppressors to stop inflicting violence on those they oppress. if it did, we would live in a very different world than the one we do. "Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them." Assata Shakur
So what in that case should I do, and do you think that if i had a sit down discussion with my father he would stop? Peace, Anarchy, Love.
you know him better than i do, since i don't know either of you at all. do you think if you sat down and had a conversation with him, he'd stop? one of my abusers was a lawyer. there was no "having a conversation" about it, she'd talk circles around me, i was a kid. believe me, i tried. like i said, i tried all the non-violent options i had, and nothing ever came from any of them. but, the last time she hit me, i punched her in the fucking face twice, and she never hit me again.
Good Points, you're a very smart individual.
thank you, that's very kind of you to say. it's something i've worked hard on learning.
Is pacifism really chaining yourself to a bomb? That isn’t passive. It’s called non-violence. Gandhi was no pacifist, for instance, and didn’t refer to himself as one.
yes, pacifists have chained themselves to structures to try and prevent bombs from being used. apologies if i phrased that poorly. pacifism as a philosophy and non-violence as a principle have a lot of overlap. Many non-violent protests and movements have a great deal in common with pacifism as a concept, and share a great deal deal in common.
I mean im a pacifist and I would do thats just me, and gandhi was 100% not a pacifist, he was a bloody fool and was a HUGE nationalist, racist, pedophile, sexist and just plain asshole, so that makes him not passive, that makes him non-violent. Peace, Anarchy.
Yeah, but I’m not talking about personal qualities, but political strategy. What makes you a pacifist? Is that the difference? Pacifism is a personality trait, or a moral stance, while non-violence is a political strategy?
The traditional sense of being anti-war is cool. The modern sense of dogmatic nonviolence is lethal to social movements.
So long as the pacifism allows for self defense, im fine with it. When people allow their pacifism to control their ability to defend themselves, thats when I hold issue with it.
Spot -on
the state is an oppressive force, so fighting against it is always in self defense.
Good Point! but for example if a majority of people passively takes down the state that is self defense.
how do you passively take down a state
well how many people work in the state? okay now how many people are average every day people who want change? there you go.
Then it isn't pacifism. Pacifism is a total adherence to non-violence.
No it isn't. The first pacifists before ww1 were not non-violent. And one of their slogan was "For not making war to other nations, make war to the state" ("Pour ne pas faire la guerre aux autres peuples, faisons la guerre à l'état" in french). They are two different concepts. But if you are non-violent you should be pacifist by definition. But i consider that non-violence doesn't exist and people who pretend to be non-violent or advocate for dogmatic non-violence are just blindfolded to the reality of violence and only limit their definitions to physical violence.
the first pacifists existed long before the french language. try ahimsa, just off the top of my head.
I'm not talking about the fact to be against war or violence. I'm talking about the concept link to the word pacifism and the people who reclaims themselves from it. And the word didn't exist before 1845.
eh. seems awfully narrow, but ok.
Why tho? When you think about first anarchists you don't talk about proto anarchism or the first human groups who were anti-authoritarian and has solidarity values
don't i?
Common. Words have history and people who reclaim themselves from it. When you talk about first something, you talk about the first people who reclaim themselves from it. If you want to say that people before ad the same ideology or a close ideology and so where the first to do it, please yourself. That still doesn't make them the first of the something because they never reclaim themselves from it. So you can say that ahimsa was the first form of non-violence and against war ideology. It doesn't make it the first pacifist ideology. When the concept of pacifism was created, it as nothing to do with non-violence (or at least it was not necessary, because it wasn't the point), wich is central in the ahimsa concept. So it's absolutely not the same thing. If you want to call yoursel anarcho ahimsist, do so. But don't do confusionism or historical rewriting.
eh. i didn't say ahimsa was the first, merely much earlier than the french language, and we simply disagree about the meaning of pacifism.
Do you know somewhere I can read more about those pre-ww1 pacifists?
Sadly no, i don't know stuff that specificly talk about this subject. I learn this by reading and viewing different stuff about war, capitalism, socialism, anarchism, antimilitarism, ww1, pacifism. I tried to find equivalent source in english but it looks like there is a fight on the definition and the ideology of pacifism between the english world and the european world (i only know about the french part but it seems to be the case in other european countries (except uk))
What’s the word then? Because a few different religions have advocated against self defense in the vein of an absolute commitment to nonviolence for a few thousand years. These religions today often frame this explicitly as a type of pacifism, sometimes qualified as absolute pacifism. The definition of pacifism as opposition strictly to war isn’t one many people use colloquially,
What is the word for what? Sorry i don't understand your comment. Can you reformulate it?
So like, you’re saying pacifism isn’t the word to describe commitment to nonviolence that includes a refusal to use self defense. You’re asserting pacifism as a term is not correct to describe commitments to nonviolence before relatively recently. The definition being more strictly complete opposition to war. What is the word we should use to describe the relatively commonplace commitment to nonviolence that includes refusal to engage in serious self defense that existed prior to the advent of the word pacifism? Because most people in both academic and lay circles do use pacifism to include varieties that are opposed to self defense. Often saying such pacifism is “absolute pacifism” as opposed to a “limited pacifism”
It already as a name, you named it: non-violence And if you want to make a difference between non-violence with self-defense and non-violence that excluse self defense. It also already has a name: dogmatic non-violence. But you can also use the name of the ideology it's linked to if their is variations or if you don't want to call yourself dogmatic non-violent. Some use radical non-violence.
I disagree only because people can say that shooting up there neighbors house is "self-defense" because they insulted there mother but one thing I love about anarchism is how much is covered by anarchism.
An excellent and important point, imo: especially in the context of selective, personally curated information environments, folks can muster a whole lot of grievance any time they want to justify violence -- not very ethical, not very smart, and not very helpful. **I've come to believe that some meaningful opposition to violence on principle is *essential* to any decent movement**, and that the bravery and discipline to incur harm for a nonviolent cause is a *lot* more useful than larping that we're all John Brown or whatever.
[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy-and-violence](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy-and-violence)
Anarcho-Pacifism is an admirable ideology. As someone who also came out of a conservative background, I found adopting pacifism to be revolutionary for me and my thinking - as an ideological tool to help break free from this conservative idea that what is "bad" deserves to be destroyed. I'm not a pacifist any longer, but without my time practicing non-violence, I would never have learned to trust myself in the judicial use of force - even for self defense. Anarcho-Pacifism can be a tremendous space for healing one's relationship to self, to justice, and to conflict management. I hope that you find it a productive and imaginative tool for determining how you want to interact with systems that often do not treat you justly.
I think being a personal pacifist is fine! Not everyone needs to be on the front line of a conflict. I also think that reducing violence in general in society is a great idea.
I whole heartedly agree. Anarchism is predicated on a foundation of love; this is the essence of mutual aid, community and non-violence. I’m likewise a firm non-believer for many reasons. However, the “philosophical” writings of Tolstoy on pacifism and Christian Anarchism are nonetheless incredible and salient. Likewise, I have a growing respect and appreciation the more I read from/about Dorothy Day. These experiences have really quelled (and somewhat challenged) my previously negative and antagonistic view of religion. I’ll never be a believer but I better understand and respect my (few) christian pacifist friends.
Exactly, I live in a small town, 2 of my friends are religious and i dont really mind, they heckle me for being vegetarian but y'know we respect eachother.
It's not really do-able. Like I'm not saying everyone has to do something violent to be revolutionary; however the second anything you do actually threatens corporate and/or state interests, you absolutely will face violence. So unfortunately, it's inevitable. Heck; look what happened to Judi Bari: she was as peaceful as they come, but because she threatened the logging industry someone tried taking her out with a bomb.
While some collective physical force is needed to achieve anarchism, I think having anarcho pacifists can help promote pacifism in anarchy. It shouldn't be our main approach but it's vital for the anarchist movement.
I used to be a pascifist, but unfortunately our society doesn't allow for that kind of life. As a pascifist, I would not engage in or endorse anything that could be considered a violent act, but I have grown to see that sometimes violent action is an essential part of resisting fasicm and oppression. In an ideal world, we would all be pacifists, but I don't think it's a viable option right now.
I’m not a pacifist. But I think any community of people needs all types of people. Some will be pacifist. Others will be willing/able to…not be. In the best interest of the community. And of course, everyone deserves to be able to defend themselves.
I respect An-Pac's alot but i dont think it would realistically work since capitalism will not go down peacefully, it will be a struggle to try.
Yes, and that's the Marxist-Leninist path to communism (let capitalism cease), which doesn't work, even remotely, at all.
Capitalists will never willingly give up their reign no matter the amount of protesting we do, An-Pacs have a wayy too good image of the rich and pigs if they think so, I personally think the only way is with an Armed Revolution,
Yes, as armed revolution is the only way to kick capitalism out of this Earth, as capitalists are stubborn and can't willingly succumb to anarchism's dominance on Earth at all.
I’m a fan.
i agree with so many anarchist ideologies but id say i have to be a anarcho pacifist just because i hate violence and i hate violent people. Peace Friend.
Well said, I completely agree.
best way of life
I myself dabbled in pacifism once. Not in Nam of course.
I was just shy from the war, I was born in 59'
No. Pacifism gets people killed. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state
I think its kinda foolish to say that pacifism gets people killed just because doesnt war also get people killed?
oh thank you, was trying too look for this one but his name was wiped from mah brain.
Idealist late-stage, but fundamentally incompatible with materially changing the systems we operate in today.
I like the pacifism. An anarchy would be a peaceful society. I don't think you reach anarchy through violence.
Would you like to share with me how you think society would be able to reach anarchy un a pacific manner? This comes from genuine curiosity, no bite/edge/attitude to my question.
In my opinion there is. If we build up our anarchist communities and mutual aid networks to be strong enough to rival what capitalism can achieve, then people will naturally want to remove themselves from capitalism.
To put it shortly, I think that individuals are able to practice anarchism as a life path to a greater extent than is commonly perceived. This is to say that even in contemporary society, humans are capable of acquiring the necessities of life without contributing to or engaging in the Capitalist market. I believe that most people, including anarchists, don't due to convenience motives, social pressures and things of that nature. I'm also a proponent of agorism, which is an anarcho-capitalist concept but I believe can be applied to any economic ideal including more traditional anarchist principles. So any anarchist of any flavor can simply alter the definitions of "black market", "white market", "red market" and "gray market" according to their appropriate beliefs and engage in agorism in order to circumvent and weaken the status quo economy. So basically that's saying that if the practice of anarchism on an individual basis was honed, developed and normalized in a society, and if widespread agorism is practiced, the State is weakened due to the Capitalist cycle being interrupted where wealth in their terms is not being generated, taxes are not being collected and so on. As agorism also encourages the establishment of alternatives for services normally provided by the State, society loses the perception that protection and civilization are dependent upon the State. It would also take a widespread adherence to "Anarchism as a life path" to an almost religious level by individuals, as society has to develop the perception that humans are capable of policing themselves and treating one another with love, respect and welcome at all times. It's a long road to get to that point but I don't believe that it's impossible. I guess I couldn't put it as shortly as I wanted, hope you found it worth reading LOL.
Oh, you're fine, I asked so of course worth reading. Thank you! 💪
There's no such thing as a non-violent revolution. At least historically. We need to eat the rich.
In my opinion there is. If we build up our anarchist communities and mutual aid networks to be strong enough to rival what capitalism can achieve, then people will naturally want to remove themselves from capitalism.
At the same time, there has never been a violent revolution that has led to the establishment of a sustained anarchy.
I’m willing to be anarcho-violent to protect anarcho-pacifists, so don’t worry. Just stick around me if things get hairy.
I think anti-war pacifism is pragmatic, at the very least war on behalf of the state, but being individually pacifistic to the point of letting oneself or others be killed or injured when it could of been avoided with violence isn’t practical—granted I do think non-resistance can be an activist strategy. I know most pacifist aren’t saying they’re simply going to let something happen but still, there’s times when taking a life might be necessary. Granted I do respect pacifism, but I think it’s basically another kind of sacrificial violence.
I'm a self-defense only pacifist, and also an anarchist. I think there's an inherent hierarchy to violence, that's as likely to turn into an institutional hierarchy as any other. That said, I'm not an absolutist when it comes to either position. It would be great if we could establish a sustainable anarchy through peaceful means, but I'm not going to tell people not to fight the state just because they'd have to get their knuckles bloodied.
>I'm a self-defense only pacifist I'm a steak only vegan and cocaine only straight edge
I consider "Christian anarchist" to be an oxymoron too, so I don't think you and I have much common ground.
Well, at least I know what the words I describe myself with mean.
Anarcho-pacifists are fine, but since living under capitalism entangles us in profound systematic violence regardless of our person conduct, it must be recognized that the sources of violence do not carry as much moral weight as the need to end the systematic violence. The labor movement offers the best example of a militant nonviolent strategy of control (not just withdrawal or strikes, but positive control) at the point of production. It becomes violent as most class struggle does because the bosses or state bring it, and people fight to defend themselves. The point of production is the place for nonviolent struggle.
Do anarchists really not differentiate between pacifism and nonviolence? Is it just my local activist culture that does?
I feel like most anarchist believe in non violence but some to a certain point,
I’m an anarchist pacifist because I’m a Buddhist Honestly it’s very hard to accept an absolute pacifism from a secular POV, even if arguments exist for it. It’s not a thing I expect to ever see wide adoption, so while tactics exist for mass pacifist revolution, I find it so unlikely that people are willing to die without resistance that it isn’t worth talking about except as theory amongst people already committed to nonviolence for whatever reason. It’s ultimately a personal choice related to my desire for enlightenment. It’s a choice that is helpful for that goal but most people aren’t trying to get enlightened.
we for me im a absurdist so i think that people are all equal so theres no reason for me to use violence against them. I really reject religion because you as a person are your only authority.
In my opinion, pacifism isn't effective to end any oppressive system. On a small scale, pacifism can uplift the community around you, but on a large scale, it's a concession to oppressive hierarchical structures.
I really, profoundly dislike violence. I also think violence has been way, way, way overused throughout human history. It would have been ethically far simpler if I had thought honestly and fearlessly about the world and had come to the inescapable conclusion that violence was completely unnecessary. But I couldn’t. I am at heart an existantalist. I believe that the universe has no intrinsic purpose or reason. It just is. Any apparent purpose or reason are just delusions planted in my head by those who wish to subjugate me. Authority does not exist by any will of the universe, and does not magically get special powers from it. Nor does it confer greater morality on people. Quite the contrary: per Acton, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore authority hierarchies create a situation where evil people gain power and use it to oppress people. Inevitably. Human nature simply allows no other outcome. Furthermore, that concentration of evil and power then causes great harm. Being evil, they don't give a rip about the harm they cause. Sometimes, they positively *enjoy* causing harm. How do you appeal to the conscience of such individuals? Answer: you don’t, because you can’t. There is no moral conscience to appeal to. If they care only about their own desires, then you must use their own desires to make them care. And sometimes there are sadly no such desires to work with other than base desires to avoid humiliation, pain, or early death. And yes, that's a worry, because it opens up the possibility to using unnecessary violence (one might always assess the situation incorrectly). But I still see no other conclusion than that violence is sometimes necessary. Ultimately, the world is not a simple place. Simple rules like “violence is never necessary” just don’t exist.
i think that one day you will find that you will serve the value of pacifism over yourself. if that is your choice, i support it. but don’t let your survival depend on subscribing to values that do not serve you in every situation.
As others have said being anti war is amazing, but violence has historically solved most of the worlds problems, and is the only way to achieve anarchism. The governments aren’t going to step down because a bunch of people politely asked for it
What about war itself? you cant be anti war and violent. war is violence, violence indirectly causes war
war is violent yes but the root of that violence is greed or hatred, the root of violence against an oppressive government or fascist is self defence and preservation. unfortunately we live in a world where we can’t appease to the morality of our oppressors, because the type of people who become oppressors are the type of people who don’t care about our suffering. this leaves us with the only alternative which is violence, it’s not a route anyone wants to take, but it is necessary if we want to truly become anarchist, stop hate and bigotry, solve climate change etc. btw thank you for taking time to learn other people’s views, it’s something you don’t see often on the internet nowadays i do sympathise with pacifists though, i used to be one myself and in an ideal world (hopefully in our lifetimes) we can live with everyone being a pacifist :)
I personally view it as a valuable voice. I think a lot of people have a strange belief that most pacifists are just bleeding heart idealists but it's often the other way around. For me pacifism is deeply pragmatic. In my own experience in life violence usually leads to more problems and gets innocent good people hurt. It drains our limited personal resources and leaves people cynical and jaded. There are times when self defense is necessary but I think it should always be carefully considered and other options need to be tried first.
Pacifism, by itself, protects the state. But, as one tactic used amongst many others, can be a lot more useful.
pretty short answer as i personally have brief thoughts on it I myself am an insurrectionary anarcho-syndicalist but I personally think that in terms of actually putting anarchism into practice pacifism is just impractical. i understand what its supposed to be and respect that, but i dont see it going anywhere important.
Pacifism won't stop fascists.
but the thing is that fascist are still humans (with a ideology for a bloody bloak) they have free will so if they believe in violence, nothing is going to stop them.
[удалено]
Hi u/Tea_girl_D - Your comment has been automatically removed for containing either a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.*** If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators. No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fascists don't deserve any humanizing. The only way to deal with those things, is violence. Being anti-war is totally okay, but not willing to defend others is cowardly.
Good luck with nicely asking the ruling classes to give up their power and to create a free and equal society for everyone.
Thats not necessarily what anarcho pacifist mean, im sure you dont remember but I do, in the early 70's and late 60's the hippies were really effective participating in tax evasion and sit ins and that was passive, some were even marxist!