Pacifism - To See Clearly

Pacifism - To See Clearly

by John Skieswanne


With all the violence plaguing our much troubled era, in the face of all the problems which war and violence arose, I have thought about 7 points in favour of pacifism.


- A truly sovereign society is one which is physically at peace. Instead of wasting its resources into waging endless violent wars, it employs these very resources into creating scientific breakthroughs and thus augmenting its people's quality of life.

- A society at war spends alot of its resources, whose existence's duration is limited by the violent nature of war itself. A society at war quickly becomes a society in debt.

- If the goal of a war is peace, then it implies the goal of this said war is to stop the killing. So why not stop deadly wars in the first place? If one bullies the bully, one still becomes the next bully.

- If an enemy can never have enough power to physically destroy a society, then this enemy is by definition of no threat to survival of the society. Thus violent war is useless, as the society's survival is assured.

- If an enemy has so much power that it will physically destroy any society, then violent war against this enemy is useless, as it will end with the society's assured destruction.

- Why use physical violence unto one's enemy, if one can make this enemy owe its very existence to one?

- A undefeatable enemy makes it an ally equally impossible to defeat.


Pacifism is the cure to this scramble into madness which has plagued so many nations, it is the mark of a society which has abandoned barbarian thinking and embraced this World (and soon transplanetary) unification which has for now existed only in Asimovian science-fictions.

Pacifism holds the proof that Mankind can evolve. It is the mark of the future.

For to be able to accept the unknown, we must first accept that which we already know...


At Time's End,

Swan

a reply to: swanne

Nicely written. I've long tended toward pacifism and politically, toward isolationism. Unfortunately, because of the uneven distribution of resources in the world, there will probably always be conflict between peoples.

a reply to: swanne

Pacifism is something we all should aspire too despite there being few signs that humanity is ready for the concept.

The second point reminds me of a show you might enjoy...The Infinite Monkey Cage. Only recently they were debating whether war benefits Mankind through the scientific developments that are turned towards peace or the betterment of the human condition. One critical aspect they failed to address was the lack of supporting evidence that peace can be equally beneficial...unfortunately we can count our days of peace on fingers and toes.

In your third bullet-point we have the seeds of dissent as there's surely no standard goal for war. Peace might be the goal of the attacked whereas dominance, riches and territory typify the goals of the aggressor.

Still, I don't want to come across as negative and have always held on to the aspiration that peace is a worthwhile pursuit. Jaded cynicism has tempered the optimism.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: swanne

Pacifism is something we all should aspire too despite there being few signs that humanity is ready for the concept.

Indeed. As long as there are corporations who profit from wars, as long as there are hollywood shows to portray violence as acceptable, peace will be hard to implement. But although humanity as a whole might not be ready, I am fairly certain that at least a few men, and women, are.

Peace might be the goal of the attacked whereas dominance, riches and territory typify the goals of the aggressor.

That is actually where the beauty of pacifism lies: Although war may have different motives, pacifism has the ability to create a standard, by which a violent attacker may be identified. In this respect, if you think about it, pacifism is no different than scientism.

a reply to: swanne

What good is pacifism if those that practice it are dominated by those who wont? There are some things in this life that are worth fighting for.

An ancient proverb warns that “You should not bite the hand that feeds you.”

But maybe you should if it prevents you from feeding yourself.

originally posted by: METACOMET
a reply to: swanne

What good is pacifism if those that practice it are dominated by those who wont? There are some things in this life that are worth fighting for.

There are many ways to fight. Violence is only one of them.

And so far it has proven to be extremely ineffective. All revolutions ended up becoming the next monarchy.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. "

- Einstein

a reply to: swanne

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

If...if...

But we didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

There are some things worth fighting for.

a reply to: METACOMET

Fighting fights with even more fights is a strange game. The only winning move is
Not to play
Not to play
Not to play
Not to play
Not to play
Not to play

Pray tell me how the quote you just posted falsifies any of the seven points in my OP? Additionally, Stalin is a perfect example about how violent revolutions end up becoming the next monarchy. You only strengthened my point.

All societies or 'groups' of people are tribal in nature. As long as INDIVIDUAL people identify themselves with fictional societies living in fictional countries within fictional borders, there will always be conflict and war.

Ugh

Pacifism is self defeating.

In theory it sounds lovely. But would you sit on a sword?

Humans by nature and survival have to be rebellious.

a reply to: Visitor2012

Nice point. Though in our modern era, a society can exist without frontiers. If greed, discrimination, etc. sees no frontiers; then ideals of betterment and tolerance - can too exist beyond frontiers, races, etc. For when a tribe is at peace with another tribe, and they share so much together, and becomes stronger together, then frontiers in themselves become useless.

And this will be the time when they'll realize that we all are children of the same, ultimate society, above anything else: the Earth.

a reply to: kodasaufa

Not everyone is as pessimist as you are. Some of us are tired of men who has nothing else at heart but their own personal survival. Of men who really believe that murders is the final solution.

Some of us have the guts to stop worshipping retribution. To stop obsessing with inflicting physical harm into our environment - including the Earth's (do you know how much damages wars causes to the ecosystem? ).

Some of us have the courage to make the first step for evolution. Even if it means to stop being egocentric, even if it means trusting someone else than ourselves. Because we know that there is so much more to Life than mere "survival".