From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Subject: Re: Pacifism vs. Resistance
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 23:14:07 GMT

>Article 47 in trial.talk.politics.peace:
>From: kubard@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
>
>.........your post raises an important question in my opinion.  Does pacifism
>connote non-resistance?  I would say that the answer is no.  If I'm wrong on
>this then I guess I'm not a pacifist.  However, it seems to me that pacifism is
>a call for non-violence, not non-resistance.  It is possible to resist without
>becoming violent.  Ghandi is, of course, the most famous example.
>
>Non-resistance bothers me a great deal as it seems to imply a blow with the
>wind outlook.  It is our responsibility as citizens to act and effect change
>when we see something that we believe is not right.  This action is resistance.
>
>To do any less would be to shirk our responsibilities as citizens not only of
>our country, but of our individual communities and the world.
>That is not to say that this resistance must be violent or angry.  However, we
>must if we are to make our pacifistic beliefs the norm rather than the
>exception resist our essentially violent culture.  We must lead not allow
>others to roll by.
>
>                                                Peace,
>                                                John Phythyon, Jr.
 
John,
 
Wow!  This is the first chance I have had to examine my beliefs
in this minute detail.  First, I would like to see exactly how
close we are.  I get the impression that you might never advocate
physical violence.  Yet I am not certain you go quite that far,
because I doubt that you would advocate putting an end to all
prisons and police officers.  It is going to take physical
violence in order to get people into jails.  They are not going to
volunteer to be locked up.
 
Therefore, asserting that physical violence is NEVER acceptable
is an extremely radical proposition.  I had better at least try
to offer something to back it up.  My response to your question
of non-resistance might shed some light.
 
>Does pacifism connote non-resistance?
Let's not argue what pacifism is.  Let's argue rather what type of
pacifism is of the highest quality?
 
It seems as if you are saying that non-resistance is ineffective
in making the world a better place.
 
>However, we must if we are to make our pacifistic beliefs the
>norm rather than the exception resist our essentially violent
>culture.
 
Here you assume that your beliefs are better than anyone elses.
This is a common sentiment, even some of the worst dictators
must have felt the same way.  But, for the sake of argument,
I am willing to cede that if everyone were pacifist, the world
would be a better place.  I will even give you that resistance
would be effective in getting people to go along with your
beliefs.  Violence would be even MORE effective.
 
>It is our responsibility as citizens to act and effect change
>when we see something that we believe is not right.
 
The classic argument FOR the use of violence.  A good number of
people thought that Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait was not right.
Boy oh boy did we act on it, and boy oh boy were we effective
in making a change.  Of course you would insert the disclamer that
physical violence is not a proper means of effecting change.
Around 100,000 people were killed, but the world's a better place,
so people tell me.
 
Of course, you are a proponent of the mildest form of this fight
evil with evil philosophy.   Your's is a non-violent coercion, a
non-violent retalliation.  Yet why is your basic philosophy used
as an excuse for the most gruesome atrocities?  Why doesn't it
work?  Because it goes against the deepest truth about the human
soul, the truth that we have a free will, and that deep down almost
everyone will retaliate against anyone elses attempt to force their
beliefs on us.   Oh sure, outwardly we will do whatever those
coercing us wish, but inwardly we will resent their inhumane
imposition.
 
Thugs will lustfully use violence and coercion to get what they
know is right (their own happiness.)  Out of fear, the government and
the church will resist the thugs, with countless violent and nonviolent
means because they truly know what is right (self-defense).  The
anarchists angrilly will resist the government and the church and
anyone else who tries to impose their beliefs on them with all forms
of violent and non-violent means, becase they truly know what is right
(freedom).  And you will non-violently resist all of these, because you
know what is right (non-violence.)
 
This cycle of retalliation is never ending, so long as one believes in
resistance.  The government will counter resist the violent anarchist
and vice versa.  The prisoner will not only be not reformed in prison,
but will come out even more hardened than when (s)he went in.
 
Fighting negative energy with negative energy is effective.  But it
is only effective in creating more evil.  Any pressure you apply will
be met with pressure.  Resistance will meet resistance.  Force will
be met by force.  Coercion will be met by coercion, and violence will
be met by violence.  Outwardly, people will do what the bully wishes.
Inwardly they will seethe.
 
If I am right on this, the picture looks pretty bleak, no?  Why I bet
there are almost none who can think of what to do if resistance is not
an option.  But there is another way.  You might call it non-resistant
ACTIVISM.   Heavy stress on activism.  There is plenty to do!  Non-
resistant pacifism is NOT passivism!  It's pure positive engery!  It's
love!  Love does no harm.  Love does not resist evil.  Love transcends
evil.  Rather than perpetuating pain with retaliation, love absorbs
pain, and puts happiness in its place.   Love is saying, go ahead, hit
me with your best shot, I'll keep coming back to you with kindness.
 
Such a non-resistant stance requires almost a fanatical faith in love,
and in living for giving.   When you live to give, you do not try to
change other people with force.  You accept them as they are.  Love them
as they are, no matter who they are.  Wanting to change other people's
beliefs arises out of selfishness and pride.
 
Some people however may be changed.  By seeing the example you give, and
your deep kindness and happiness, they too may come to believe in loving
rather than retaliating.  Unlike the superficial change that arises out
of you trying to coerce other people to change, when you LEAD by
example, and people choose to follow your example, it is a REAL change.
Not only will their external actions change, but their inner beliefs,
their hearts will be changed.  And you can take joy in knowing that they
freely choose to make your beliefs their own, because they saw something
of value in them.
 
But you brushed all of this off as ineffective.  I tell you there is no
greater power, than freely chosen love.   It may be millions of years
before humanity realizes this, but as it gradually does, humanity will
be changed on a monumental scale.
 
It is wonderful that you have chosen pacifistic beliefs.  Be
happy that you have found something that not many people have even
begun to understand.  Don't try to force those beliefs on others.
They will come to them when they are ready.  There is only one way for
them to come to your beliefs.  If they see something of value in the
example you set.  If they are blind to your example, all the coercion
in the world is not going to change their beliefs.
 
So what type of action is non-resistive activism?  I guess the key
is easing the pain of others, and bringing a bit of happiness to
those who you can.  Don't tell me there are no opportunities to do this.
The opportunities are EVERYWHERE!  In fact, acts of love are so common,
we take them for granted.  We expect it as a part of being human.  We
are shocked when people don't love.
 
================Summary of our postitions======================
What you are saying is that non-resistance is
ineffective for improving the world.
I say that while resistance is effective, it effects only
negative change.  I say that not only can non-resistive
activism (love) effect good, it is the only means of effecting
good.
===============================================================
 
The answer, my friend, IS blowing in the wind.
 
Peace,
Glenn              glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
 
P.S.  I hope you haven't minded me being this outspoken.  I am
not certain that what we have here is not so much a difference
in beliefs, but rather a difference in definitions.  There is a
fine line between acts of love and acts of resistance.  I would
accept jumping in front of a bullet to save my girlfriend.  Is
this an act of resistance?  I'd say no.  But we are splitting
fine hairs here.
Newsgroups: trial.talk.politics.peace