Pacifism is a Naive Belief System

In order to prove that Pacifism is not a naive set of believes, I need to prove that it IS effective- and has been so in the past. [And it is more effective than the corresponding alternative of a war. ]What IS pacifism? Pacifism refers to a set of beliefs where people pledge their allegiance to no war and no violence. They resist solely through non violent means. [Here, Pro made an interesting case on the definition of violence, but I'll get to it later. For the purpose of discussion, here, violence refers to violation of the non aggression principal]. Pacifism is not impotency, it is not non action. It is resistance with a caveat. There's going to be no persuance of killing anybody- no war, and no 'strategic killing of your opponents'. Pacifism is a strategic resistance, it is not merely showing the world that the opponent is horrible, it is cutting off the sources of power of the oppressor. I'll elaborate on this later. Is this possible? A common refreain is that it sounds too 'theoritical'. If history sets any precedent, then yes, it is indeed possible. The Indian independence struggle against the Britishers, the toppling of the regime of Marcos, the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, the Danish fooling the Nazis and protecting their Jews, the similar (but different) struggle and success in Norway, all are a legacy to Pacifism. It is, indeed possible, and it has (indeed) happened in the past. An interesting fact about these examples is that these happened across different time periods, across different political conditions. They did topple dictators too, who technically are not answerable to the public and should be able to crush their opponents. [. http://www.nonviolenceunited.org...]Is a non violent struggle more powerful than a violent struggle? What IS power? Power, as Hannah Arendt contends, is not a property of an individual. Even dictators, presumely one of the most powerful people in the country- depend on military, on police, on a beaureucratic system to carry out its whims. Alone, the dictator is powerless. Even Machiavelli, the Godfather of realism agrees that the price of a violent struggle is high and paid for by both the vanquished and the victor. The victor pays in terms of his own power. Power of a head of a country depends on obedience and cooperation of the public. In the long run, government systems cannot be held together by the force of pressure, but they are by belief in the truthfulness with which they represent and promote the interest of the public. In case the government fails to look at the interests, why would a non violent struggle be more effective than a violent one? 1. Those who threaten based on violence are relying on the fear of people. They need people, and more often than not, they agree that killing everyone is not the option. They want to kill a few, and set a precedent- of what would happen if others continue on the same path. Once this fear is overcome, a pandora box of opportunities opens. Note that this does not means that we are going to be killed, walking unarmed into a grenade mine/ machine gun system is but one of the strategy that Pacifists can use. There are other, often more effective solutions.2. Government, usually, controls the means of violence. what this means is that usually- people are revolting using the oppressors weapon of choice. Which is ineffective for the obvious reasons.3. Violence begets violence. It legitimizes further violence. Taking historical examples again, During the Algerian revolution, 1 million out of the total population of around 10 million died during a violent struggle. Just 8,000 of a total population of 350 million were killed in the Indian independence struggle. Some say that this was because Britishers were inherantly more moral than the French. But then the same Britishers killed 11,503 Kenyans out of a total population of around 100,000. Once the revolters use violence, it is legitimate for the government to use it 'to protect the sanctity of the government'. And the government (oppressor? ) is usually better at it. Violence takes away focus from the issue, and focusses it on the violence- which is a big loss to the revolutionaries. They stand to gain nothing, and lose a lot. 4. Violence excludes a lot of people from the struggle, because of the virtue of their method- which means it is not necessary for the violent people to have a cause that resonates with the people. The people who forward their 'issues' are the ones who have the strength, and the one with larger ammunitions win. It sets up a dangerous precedent, the precedent whose effect has been felt time and again in the world power struggles. What strategy? The strategy to counter an unjust system (very) broadly consists of two steps. First, we identify the source of power in the system. The source might be moral, or economic, or might be a mix of the two. Hitler, for example, relied on his diatrab against the Jews- and used the extermination of Jews as a political tool to stregthen his own power. In case the power source is economic, like in British India, the source was economic strength, among other things. The second step, is to cut off that source. Economic sanctions. Basic level sensitization. Protests. Petitions. Cutting off the source of the power is a multi pronged approach, part of which has been explained in the diagram given below. Thus, just showing the world that their opponent is terrible is not enough. The opponent isn't going to stop just because of that- you need to *move beyond that*. Spreading information about the injustice is necessary, part of the sensitization, but certainly not sufficient. > A part of having a successful non-violent revolution is to have a concrete objective in mind. You can't herald a revolution 'bcoz d govt is ebil', even though it might resonate with a lot of people. > There needs to be a conscious thought of what exactly you want, and how the government laws/ actions are preventing you from achieving the goal. > What is the source of power of the government legitimacy in the specific sector. > And how YOU are going to target that particular source of power. [. http://www.wri-irg.org...]> Thus, once you have *cause* on your side, and you successfully resonate with a lot of people- you have a legit revolution in your hands. Harnessing that power and achieving the objective is the obvious next step. Now, coming back to Pro's case, he gave an interesting definition of violence. According to it, violence is inherant in any being, thus any belief system relying on non violence is self refuting. That, I believe is a rather simplistic belief. Just because our existence is violent, (and according to the definition provided, it is) that doesn't divide the world in a yay or nay revolution strategies. THAT would be rather naive, I should think. Pacifism ensures that their strategies do not kill their opponents, there are no weapons used that'd aim to kill their opponents, or injure them. It aims to cripple the opponent, not kill them. Killing them is easy and counter productive. Secondly, going over the scenerio, How would a pacifist deal with refugees? An interesting proposition. Pacifism doesn't really relate to economic philosophies, so you can be a Pacifist while simultaneously being a libertarian. IF you are a Libertarian, you have complete property right over Salmon-ville. You aren't required to give any of your Salmons to Agri-town. However, you may, if you are a pacifist and value human life (a moral pacifist, if you will), you might want to give any of your extra produce to the agri-town people- for free OR for future payments, as you wish to. However, given that the Agri town people are 10 times the Salmon-ville people, this should not be enough. It is now that they ask for help from people outside their little bubble. In fact, this is the solution that Pacifist organizations routinely take in case of refugee distress (. http://www.jta.org...). They collect funds, and assist people. This solution is obviously inherantly better than the solution involving deaths, given that people did survive on both sides, and the flood is anyway temporary. Once the water subsides, and they go back to their land and rebuild the ruins, they be better off. Also to note, is that in this case- GIVEN the realist solution, when exactly would the sparring stop? Once the Salmon-ville kills some of the Agri town's people, would the fight still remain about having sufficient food? Would it not transform into a fight for 'revenge'? Living together peacefully with the murderers of their kins and families seems a little far fetched. I await an interesting case by Pro :)Source:Not specific, but this interview is interesting, for anyone interested in Pacifism- . http://www.utne.com...;