Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
There is a natural assumption that pacifist tactics in the face of tyranny is not only superior but essentially effective. Now as I can agree with the former I am not sure if I believe in the assumption attached to the latter. Is it reasonable to assume that non-violence is only a tactic and not a way of life and that if it fails to work violent resistance is required?
Doesn't the insistence that non-violent resistance is desirable in all circumstances assume that peace is natural and perpetual peace attainable? How many believe that we can live in a peaceful earth where violence does not come into play and that renouncing violence can lead to victory against tyranny?
Someone said that violence begets violence does it follow that peaceful actions begets peace?
When, if ever, should a group or an individual use violence against tyranny? Is violence as self-defence against brutality always the wrong call? I'm trying to figure out if organizations and groups should always prescribe to pacifist actions no matter the circumstances which is really what pacifists seem to believe.
How many would agree with the assumptions in this post:
For thousands of years violent conflicts has also been used to establish unjust regimes and maintain socio/political horrors. It’s a chicken-and-egg situation—violence perpetuates violence. There are ways to organize, cooperate and work for more justice without killing people or inviting murder by government police. To do so requires resistance, but not violent resistence. To do so requires the courage to be willing to risk being killed, but to also have the courage (and the common sense) not to kill in retaliation. Nonviolent resistance, as well as being a morally superior strategy and tactic, requires even more courage than violence. Violent opposition fears nonviolence because violent force knows how cowardly it looks when it oppresses and abuses nonviolent people. Violent opposition against nonviolence inevitably loses its moral credibility. And its creative ability, its ability to think of new and better solutions. It deals in death, not life."
Is it really superior to sit and allow oneself to get beaten instead of fighting back? As a tactic I can't help but think that violent revolutions, though not desirable, worked fine in places like France as well as the United States.:shrug:
Violence can backfire against a group fighting for specific aims but I can't help wondering what would have happened during the rise of Nazism if Jews had organized and actively fought being sent into ghettos.
Doesn't the insistence that non-violent resistance is desirable in all circumstances assume that peace is natural and perpetual peace attainable? How many believe that we can live in a peaceful earth where violence does not come into play and that renouncing violence can lead to victory against tyranny?
Someone said that violence begets violence does it follow that peaceful actions begets peace?
When, if ever, should a group or an individual use violence against tyranny? Is violence as self-defence against brutality always the wrong call? I'm trying to figure out if organizations and groups should always prescribe to pacifist actions no matter the circumstances which is really what pacifists seem to believe.
How many would agree with the assumptions in this post:
For thousands of years violent conflicts has also been used to establish unjust regimes and maintain socio/political horrors. It’s a chicken-and-egg situation—violence perpetuates violence. There are ways to organize, cooperate and work for more justice without killing people or inviting murder by government police. To do so requires resistance, but not violent resistence. To do so requires the courage to be willing to risk being killed, but to also have the courage (and the common sense) not to kill in retaliation. Nonviolent resistance, as well as being a morally superior strategy and tactic, requires even more courage than violence. Violent opposition fears nonviolence because violent force knows how cowardly it looks when it oppresses and abuses nonviolent people. Violent opposition against nonviolence inevitably loses its moral credibility. And its creative ability, its ability to think of new and better solutions. It deals in death, not life."
Is it really superior to sit and allow oneself to get beaten instead of fighting back? As a tactic I can't help but think that violent revolutions, though not desirable, worked fine in places like France as well as the United States.:shrug:
Violence can backfire against a group fighting for specific aims but I can't help wondering what would have happened during the rise of Nazism if Jews had organized and actively fought being sent into ghettos.