Pacifism and Nonviolence

[andrewmoquin]

I'm all for pacifism except I don't think the world is capable of it. I think the first step would be to stop engaging in political/greed motivated wars.

Instead, we should focus on interventionist policy and trying to get warring parties to come to peaceful solutions and helping educate them. For example, in Darfur we could have intervened using violence to show we mean business. We have technological superiority in most areas fighting wars I don't think it would be impossible to encourage piece.

It would end up like some crazy Day the Earth Stood Still scenario. I realize this is pie in the sky and full of problems but violence is still required in today's world unfortunately.

[Daniel]

Hi Andrew- forgive me, but is sounds like you are saying that pacifism and nonviolence are the same thing. However, there is a subtle, but important distinction between the two.

Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace; to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others.

Pacifism may be based on moral principles (a deontological view) or pragmatism (a consequentialist view). Principled pacifism holds that at some point along the spectrum from war to interpersonal physical violence, such violence becomes morally wrong. Pragmatic pacifism holds that the costs of war and inter-personal violence are so substantial that better ways of resolving disputes must be found. Pacifists in general reject theories of Just War.

Pacifists follow principles of nonviolence, believing that nonviolent action is morally superior and/or pragmatically most effective. Some pacifists, however, support physical violence for emergency defense of self or others. Others support destruction of property in such emergencies or for conducting symbolic acts of resistance like pouring red paint to represent blood on the outside of military recruiting offices or entering air force bases and hammering on military aircraft. However, part of the pacifist belief system is taking responsibility for one's actions by submitting to arrest and using a trial to publicize opposition to war and other forms of violence.

Nonviolence is a philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of physical violence. As such, nonviolence is an alternative to passive acceptance of oppression and armed struggle against it. Practitioners of nonviolence may use diverse methods in their campaigns for social change, including critical forms of education and persuasion, civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action, and targeted communication via mass media.

In modern times, nonviolence has been a powerful tool for social protest. Mahatma Gandhi led a decades-long nonviolent struggle against British rule in India, which eventually helped India win its independence in 1947. About 10 years later, Martin Luther King adopted Gandhi's nonviolent methods in his struggle to win civil rights for African Americans. Then in the 1960s César Chávez organized a campaign of nonviolence to protest the treatment of farm workers in California. As Chavez once explained, "Nonviolence is not inaction. It is not for the timid or the weak. It is hard work, it is the patience to win."[1] Another recent nonviolent movement was the "Velvet Revolution", a nonviolent revolution in Czechoslovakia that saw the overthrow of the Communist government in 1989.[2] It is seen as one of the most important of the Revolutions of 1989.

The 14th and current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso. Dalai Lama said nonviolence is the only way progress can be made with China.[3][4]

The term "nonviolence" is often linked with or even used as a synonym for pacifism; however, the two concepts are fundamentally different. Pacifism denotes the rejection of the use of violence as a personal decision on moral or spiritual grounds, but does not inherently imply any inclination toward change on a sociopolitical level. Nonviolence on the other hand, presupposes the intent of (but does not limit it to) social or political change as a reason for the rejection of violence. Also, a person may advocate nonviolence in a specific context while advocating violence in other contexts.

[drobs]

What do you do with the Hitlers of the world? The ones that are using their position to exterminate thousands to milions of people?

I personally don't see a pacifist nonviolent way to deal with them.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by drobs

What do you do with the Hitlers of the world? The ones that are using their position to exterminate thousands to milions of people?

I personally don't see a pacifist nonviolent way to deal with them.

They this and they that is all very vague.

However....

Remember Bosnia? That worked out pretty well, all considered. Why? Because one woman- Madeleine Albright- then the Secretary of State - got through to Clinton (it took something like 5 years) and convinced him that he had to do something.

There is something called the UN. They and the US stopped further genocide. Are we doing it in Dalfur? No. Why? Go ask Obama. Bush dropped the ball when something needed to be done. And that was like- what- 6 years ago?

Lastly- please re-read what I posted re nonviolence. Nonviolence doesn't mean that one can't do anything to stop violence. That you have to sit down and let someone mow you over. Even the Dalai Lama has said that. If a man is going to harm you, you have the right to defend yourself. And if you have to shoot him to stop him from killing you that's what you have to do. However, you might try to disable him rather than kill him. Is this always possible? No.

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Lastly- please re-read what I posted re nonviolence. Nonviolence doesn't mean that one can't do anything to stop violence. That you have to sit down and let someone mow you over. Even the Dalai Lama has said that. If a man is going to harm you, you have the right to defend yourself. And if you have to shoot him to stop him from killing you that's what you have to do. However, you might try to disable him rather than kill him. Is this always possible? No.

Daniel: I absolutely agree with you, there is definately a difference between pacifism and nonviolence. And if you ever get a chance to see the videos, "A Force More Powerful," you can see how nonviolence did work against dictators like Hitler and Pinochet.

Gandhi always maintained that it was better to resist evil (even violently) than to submit to it.

Thanks for your important contributions to this thread. I had the privilege of spending a few hours again with our beloved former webmaster, Jamie yesterday afternoon. He and his husband Chris were in the Bay Area. In various conversations we had, both Jamie and I agreed that much of our commitment to nonviolence lies in the understanding of our own potential capacity for violence. We need to keep reading and studying because the message that we get from our society is 24/7 that violence is necessary, as well as acceptable. We all need to "deprogram" from that message.

Kara

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by kara speltz

Daniel: I absolutely agree with you, there is definately a difference between pacifism and nonviolence. And if you ever get a chance to see the videos, "A Force More Powerful," you can see how nonviolence did work against dictators like Hitler and Pinochet.

Gandhi always maintained that it was better to resist evil (even violently) than to submit to it.

Thanks for your important contributions to this thread. I had the privilege of spending a few hours again with our beloved former webmaster, Jamie yesterday afternoon. He and his husband Chris were in the Bay Area. In various conversations we had, both Jamie and I agreed that much of our commitment to nonviolence lies in the understanding of our own potential capacity for violence. We need to keep reading and studying because the message that we get from our society is 24/7 that violence is necessary, as well as acceptable. We all need to "deprogram" from that message.

Kara

I see practicing nonviolence likened to practicing piano. It takes years to do it well and it is not easy. No one walks up to a piano and peforms the Beethoven "pathetique" flawlessly unless they have been practicing for years. Similarly, no one practicies nonviolence well unless he/she learns by listening and doing. The more violent and difficult a circumstance
is, the more skil is required to practice nonviolence well

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by kara speltz

Daniel: I absolutely agree with you, there is definately a difference between pacifism and nonviolence. And if you ever get a chance to see the videos, "A Force More Powerful," you can see how nonviolence did work against dictators like Hitler and Pinochet.

Gandhi always maintained that it was better to resist evil (even violently) than to submit to it.

Thanks for your important contributions to this thread. I had the privilege of spending a few hours again with our beloved former webmaster, Jamie yesterday afternoon. He and his husband Chris were in the Bay Area. In various conversations we had, both Jamie and I agreed that much of our commitment to nonviolence lies in the understanding of our own potential capacity for violence. We need to keep reading and studying because the message that we get from our society is 24/7 that violence is necessary, as well as acceptable. We all need to "deprogram" from that message.

Good to have news of Chris and hubby! I miss his presence here.

One has only to turn on the TV and see the messages of violence that we receive everyday: children get a huge dose of that before the get-go. Even cartoons have a certain violence- though I would be the first to note that seeing or reading about violence - Shakespeare anyone?- is a far cry from picking up a gun and shooting someone.

That said, we could all learn more about getting into a different frame of mind, which is not the same thing as being passive.

Originally Posted by scott snedeker

I see practicing nonviolence likened to practicing piano. It takes years to do it well and it is not easy. No one walks up to a piano and peforms the Beethoven "pathetique" flawlessly unless they have been practicing for years. Similarly, no one practicies nonviolence well unless he/she learns by listening and doing. The more violent and difficult a circumstance is, the more skil is required to practice nonviolence well

I'll go with that! And with that in mind, I must be at the chopsticks level! But hey- ya gotta start somewhere, right?

[PROVISM09]

DANgerous wrote:Could you please give me some examples as to what is false in her report so that myself and others could get a better idea then?