Pacifism and other 'sissy' things

Of course.

It would be more helpful to the discussion if you didn't conflate all pacifism with its most extreme forms.

I am not, in this case. Read my last post.

Due to trade embargoes and other such safety nets, very few governments will risk entirely alienating the international community.

How do you think the Apartheid government fell? The mini-uprisings didn't do shit for the black South Africans. The international media recording the violence inflicted upon them during peaceful protests was what turned the tide.

So the argument against pacifism is basically "We might lose".

Here's the thing: the whole backing behind the argument is that survival is more important than doing the right thing. Then how can you possibly expect anyone to give their life for the country?

I'd then ask you, why would you expect anyone to give their life for any reason? Survival, and by extension, life, is the basic drive that all life must yearn towards. Telling people not to allow themselves to survive is more or less telling them to reject their own lives, which is unthinkable, as we are all naturally averse to death. Someone choosing to give up their life for a cause, while not a path I would personally choose, is different, as it's a choice. Expecting someone to give up their life is evil, unfair pressure, because you are denying them the right to pursue their own survival. Taking a life should only be done with good enough reasons, and personal survival is one of them.

As for South Africa, that proves my point; since the government actually had much more to lose from being brutal, it relented. In other countries, where this is not an issue to the leadership, this process would not work. Would you say that, for example, resistance fighters in World War II should have rolled over and allowed the Nazis to have their way with them? Would the Vietnam War have ended the way it did if the Vietcong didn't keep fighting with every last breath?

edited 6th Sep '11 10:48:32 PM by tropetown

Who is telling anyone any such thing? People choose to be pacifists, just as they might choose to die for their country if need be.

Can you define pacifism as you see it? Because, as far as I can tell, you're arguing against some phantom ideology that is the grossest bastardization of what pacifism is in reality.

edited 6th Sep '11 10:49:44 PM by kashchei

You weren't; he was. My argument isn't whether or not you can choose to be a pacifist, my argument is that pacifism is not realistic in many situations. Nor is it an option which people will want to take, given both my moral argument and the practical, pragmatic reasons for waging war.

What you have just said, is that peaceful means are always preferable to violent ones. You also have said that non-violent resistance will always produce the desired result with a lack of escalation. What I am telling you, and what I think you probably understand, is that sometimes the peaceful option does not work. Escalation is not always born out of a desire for retaliation; sometimes it is nothing more than ruthless pragmatism, which pacifism would do nothing to solve. Perhaps you should give your definition of pacifism and your reasons for choosing it, as it would clarify a lot of what you are saying.

edited 6th Sep '11 10:55:05 PM by tropetown

"As for South Africa, that proves my point; since the government actually had much more to lose from being brutal, it relented."

Sorry, how does South Africa prove your point? The government was excruciatingly brutal for decades. What finally stopped it was an economic embargo imposed after the world witnessing the wanton brutality against a nation who could not fight back effectively by any means.

"Nor is it an option which people will want to take, given both my moral argument and the practical, pragmatic reasons for waging war."

But people do take this option, as you can glean from studying history. Radical Taoist mentioned several famous examples.

"What you have just said, is that peaceful means are always preferable to violent ones. You also have said that non-violent resistance will always produce the desired result with a lack of escalation."

Firstly, I don't use qualifiers such as "always" and "never." Secondly, I've repeatedly conceded that violence sometimes is the answer. You need to start reading what is in front of you and stop attacking strawmen.

And I'm still waiting on that definition.

edited 6th Sep '11 10:59:28 PM by kashchei

Ok, first of all, I know the apartheid regime was incredibly brutal for decades (my parents were both refugees from this regime, so I have heard my share of horror stories); what ended it was a combination of economic sanctions, mass boycotts and civil disobedience. Because the regime now had something it was afraid to lose (its economic power), it relented. My point was in a regime where this is not a factor (North Korea, for example), peaceful demonstration would do nothing at all to stop it.

I did not say that peaceful means can never work; only that expecting it to work for every situation, for the reasons you listed, is naive and unrealistic.

edited 6th Sep '11 11:02:27 PM by tropetown

Pacifists don't "expect that everybody else will obey their philosophy". They know that some people, even the majority of people, will have no qualms about attacking them. They have just decided that they're willing to accept that.

I don't think a single person in this thread has assumed that peaceful resistance always works, so what exactly are you arguing against?

Not true, as escalation is not always born out of a desire to retaliate. I should think the second point would be obvious to anybody with a brain; if that was the point I thought you were making, then it's no wonder I would argue against it.

Also not entirely true; sometimes not fighting will do nothing to cause your enemy to reconsider his stance. He may have very personal reasons to want to attack you, or highly practical reasons, too. Sometimes it can work, but it often will not. It is also as easy, if not easier to recruit people by encouraging them to commit violence than it is to recruit people by asking them to be peaceful, since violence will allow them to exercise their desire for retribution via more visceral means.

We tried not fighting back: we now call that appeasement, which prevented nothing.

You seem to be saying two different things in this thread. At first, you say that the peaceful solution is the best solution, however, sometimes violence will be necessary. Which I agree with. However, then you assume that the peaceful solution is the best solution in desperate situations, and under certain conditions, it is; however, in many situations which have gotten to the point of desperation, the peaceful option will do very little to change the end result. Also, nowhere did I: condone the use of warfare for anything other than a proper purpose, glorify war, or in any way say that war is a good thing. I did, however, state the facts that a) many people are drawn to the idea of war due to inherent drama that they (not necessarily you) find in it, b) there are practical, concrete, pragmatic reasons why countries will wage war, and c) pacifism will not be the overall direction the human race will take because of A and B.

Now that you know what I am arguing against, define exactly what your stance is so that we clear up any misunderstandings we may be having at this point.

edited 6th Sep '11 11:43:49 PM by tropetown

Well oddly enough it might have bought time for re-armament in Britain and a steady "gearing up" for war.

You have to remember that Appeasement is not the universal evil it is so often depicted as. Sure it was ethically grubby (espeically Austria) but -shrug- it may have ended up worse had war been declared too early with nothing to back it up.

@Loni: Exactly. I do think it's worth pointing out though that many people (myself included) oppose war because even the defenders aren't doing the right thing. Being at war with an enemy nation doesn't immediately justify carpet-bombing their civilians or committing atrocities, and they're not necessary to victory either.

If people are willing to give their lives for their countries, so be it, but if you're going to fight then at least fight properly. Hell, war crimes are quite capable of losing you a war anyway. There's a limit to how much the population will accept.

edited 7th Sep '11 4:40:42 AM by Heartbreaker

being raised to be passive-aggressive to conflict I find pacifism simply doesn't work...ex: in middle school i was jumped in the hall (in front of the video cameras) by 2 kids that contently harassed me. a few good punches and they never messed with me again. If they know you aren't to be trifled with and pacifism works perfectly.

That's not an example of why pacifism doesn't work, it's an example of why violence does work.

Appeasement was a necessary evil at the time it was used: what led to appeasement (Remember, Chamberlain was opposed to the original dearmament that his predecessor, Stanley Baldwin had foolishly advocated: conceding the Sudetenland was, unfortunately, damage control on Chamberlain's end), British disarmament and the idea that it is better to be killed than to kill, are what ultimately led to this disastrous necessity.

That is the speech by Stanley Baldwin in favor of disarmament; granted, it was done before the rise of the Nazi Party, but it is this precise mindset that is so disastrous for any country to have. Deciding that you will play nice does not guarantee that anyone else will.

edited 7th Sep '11 8:41:53 AM by tropetown

Yes, but you can perhaps understand why it happened. Seeing an entire generation vanish at Paschendale, the somme and verdun would cause anyone to rethink their stance on conflict.

And it might be because the treaty at versailles changed so much that we encountered the problem anyway, we may well have seen a return to the kind of proxy conflicts that were so common in the 19th centyry. The problem with arming yourself against any and all potential threats means that you will always end up spending more money on it than anything else, and I agree with Baldwins first point, you AREN'T going to be able to always defend yourself from everything. And then your living in a concrete bunker under the ground surrounded by razor wire .

edited 7th Sep '11 8:52:35 AM by JosefBugman

Oh yes, it's definitely understandable: the question is, was it wise? The answer, clearly, is no; idealistic, yes, done with the best of intentions, yes, but not the best idea.

Having powerful military capabilities is arguably the best way to prevent an attack, as it serves as a deterrent in 99% of cases. Saying armament is not a good idea is similar to saying the US should not have participated in the nuclear arms race in the Cold War; without second-strike capability, the US would not have been able to defend itself from a nuclear attack, if one came. I would also argue against any government which would rather allow its own people die than kill the people of another one, as this is an irresponsible position to take.

edited 7th Sep '11 8:53:59 AM by tropetown

Depends. I would have argued that it COULD have been the best course of action, had Versailles not been the complete cock-up it was.

And having the US participate in an arms race would be sensible... if it hadn't gotten so utterly and completly stupid. The amount of investment into armaments past a certain point (wiping out 80% of the strategic targets) was a complete waste of time and money. Not to mention a whole heap of pointless testing.

Thats the problem, you start out with sensible intentions and they always end up becoming "we need to do it better than them... because we need to!" It reminds me of a scene from Yes Prime Minister where Sir Humphrey is arguing for upgrading Polaris (the UK's nuclear sub launched missiles) by saying that "The soviets could have a new form of missile defence that could PREVENT, Polaris!" and he is asked "by when, exactly" and answers "2020... but that's sooner than you think!".

Thats why its so ridiculous, it becomes a race for no better reason that it has become a race.

[[youtube:cEo8sjnU8Jo&feature=related]]. Starting at 0:58 mins

edited 7th Sep '11 9:22:28 AM by JosefBugman

@ tropetown

That argument is largely defeated by the occurrence of World War 1. The concept was that large militaries, heavy defence spending and build-up combined with arms races (plus alliances) would make sure there was peace. It didn't. Millions of people died because it just turned into a powder keg.

Now you talk about the Cold War. Think about Turkey/Cuba missile crisis. After that, what did we do to solve that? Nuke each other? No, we went on a decades long disarmament policy and with that mentality, nobody was going to be firing nukes. Then Reagan came in and restarted the Cold War but luckily, the USSR's economics was so broken they collapsed. What did your weapons do? Absolutely nothing.

I mean no one is saying you leave yourself defenceless. If the other guy doesn't play ball, that's too bad. But to operate under the assumption that someone isn't going to play ball therefore you too will act like a militant asshole it's just illogical.

Kino, I was illustrating that non-First World countries couldn't beat the laziest First World Nations. Switzerland could have marched backwards into Libya and still won with their hands tied behind their backs.

@appeasement being a good idea,

No, it wasn't. Had Chamberlain stood up to Hitler, the German High Command was ready to pull the dickhead off the German throne (well, the metaphorical throne). Instead, the major powers appeasing Hitler gave him the credibility to cement his rule. I do grant, however, that Chamberlain probably didn't know nearly what we know today, and likely made what would have seemed like the best decision at the time.

Today? Appeasement is right up there with "nukes first" on the list of Dumbest Strategic Diplomacy Ideas Ever...

edited 7th Sep '11 1:41:43 PM by USAF713

"german throne". I assumed you are talking metaphorically as Hitler was less royal than scrofula.

And that would have amounted to a Coup D'etat, which may have helped, or it might have made things much much worse because having the military in charge of a technologically advanced nation is never going to end poorly.

And what was Britain supposed to fight Germany with if it came right down to it? Sticks and Harsh language? The prevailing opinion was the France and Britain could not survive another war, so if you really want to blame anyone blame the man in the street.

The German High Command at that point was far better than Hitler. Remember, he purged all the good people over the course of the war.

I don't give a damn what the people thought—and I hope I never have to say it again. If I'd been in Chamberlain's place I would have said "fuck it, let's go," because Hitler was Obviously Evil in his purest form.

The fact that he was evil surprised nobody in 1944-45 when we found out the truth. It was merely how much he'd mixed it with the crazy and how far he'd gone that caught us off-balance.

edited 7th Sep '11 1:56:30 PM by USAF713

... No he wasn't, he was an ordinary(ish) statesmen who did horrible HORRIBLE things. He wasn't pure evil and tbh a lot of people, both in the rhineland and elsewhere, agreed with his right to several of the areas he invaded (with the exception of parts of Austria).

Actually it DID suprise a lot of people. Dwight Eisenhower's quote on "the American soldier now knows what he is fighting against" comes from after the discovery of the Death Camps.

Going "YOU SHOULD ALL KNOW HE'S EVIL!" is utterly vacous, especially when appeasment gave Britain time to re-arm itself when, prior to the declaration of war, they had not been best prepared to do anything but fall over and bleed on the advancing armies.