Real Anarchy is Real Pacifism

#1
What is most unique among the varying ideologies was what is offered in Anarcho-Pacifism. In this type, you cannot preach the true righteousness of an Anarchist society - as opposed to the inherent violence and immorality of the state - unless you are non-violent and peaceful in nature. Further, the violence perpetrated by the anti-government protestors in Egypt would be directly opposed by those who support the ideas of peaceful resistance at all costs, rather than stopping the state at all costs (including violent overthrow and demonstration). To a pacifist who also believes that government is illegitimate by its very nature because of its ?lawful? coercion of others to follow its own ideology; anarcho-pacifism would consequently not support coercion of any kind ? even on their part for their ends. This is where the other schools of anti-government philosophy isolate their own outcast in the pacifist of the group.

But as always, the role of violence and beating back the corrupt state has always been a turning point for Anarchist philosophy. Is violence (a form of coercion) acceptable under the circumstance of resisting the state which they see as one of the ultimate evils perpetrated on society?

If true anarchism is total opposition to force and coercion that the state commands over society than wouldn?t engage in these same acts be a violation of what anarchism is trying to achieve? In order to stop of the proliferation of the state into our lives, is violence and force necessary to achieve it? Since according to most all anarchists, government is inherently coercive; than Anarchy and Pacifism must go hand-in-hand in order to separate itself from the immorality of the state.

Once we get passed the idea that true anarchism is pacifistic resistance against the organized violence that is inevitable of all governing systems, than we must bring into play the most played out debate of all: the Ends and the Means. In the special case of a peaceful anarchy philosophy, the means are the ends and the ends are the means. The means act as an expression of the values an anarchist group wishes upon society, but also does not force another into. Their ends are, consequently, a society in which no system of power forces its values or agendas on others as well. By supporting this structure, anarcho-pacifists are simultaneously fulfilling their ends by continuing their means of non-violence and non-coercion.

Perhaps it requires a deeper look. Most of all, when one finally realizes that not all Anarchy can or should be labeled as bad, violent or destructive to morality and society; we can begin to comprehend how a truly consistent anarchist must always be a consistent pacifist if they wish to bring Real change?
 
#4
Could be. However, the most stable governments on the planet "serve" the people.

No anarchistic government has existed nor will it.

Pacifism is morally bankrupt. Some thug rips your newborn daughter from your hands to smash her skull and you'll take no steps to prevent?

Pacifism denies the reality that there are times when one must use violent means to prevent horror.
 
Feb 2011
299
0
Canada
#5
Could be. However, the most stable governments on the planet "serve" the people.

No anarchistic government has existed nor will it.

Pacifism is morally bankrupt. Some thug rips your newborn daughter from your hands to smash her skull and you'll take no steps to prevent?

Pacifism denies the reality that there are times when one must use violent means to prevent horror.
You DO realise that 'anarchistic government' is a bloody oxymoron, yes? How can one have a government if one is anarchist? WTF?

I would suggest that Somalia has come closest to anarchism. You DO see how 'wonderful' anarchism works, yes? We fascists love to use Somalia as a shining example of how much of a joke is anarchism.
 
Apr 2011
6
0
#6
Well, I do think violence is necessary as a last step, and in states that aren't democratic. The latter I stress because in a fascist country, you can't get anywhere with non-violence sadly. Also, if Anarchism is to be realistic, we need to realize violence is something to be minimized as much as possible by eliminating hierarchy, but not something that can be completely eliminated. I'm a pragmatic pacifist, not a idealist pacifist. Violence however must be used only when necessary, and that isn't in a place like the U.S., with the exception of self defense. However, I don't blame people for being violent in a place like Egypt, with its dictatorship, and I wouldn't blame people for it in places like Nazi Germany. Yes, the ends are the means, I agree with this, however if we never use violence in self defense, we will be slaughtered. So, we must find a middle ground. Once the state and capitalism are eliminated, along with all the other hierarchies, we will have no need for violence. Before hand, violence will be reduced with the removal of hierarchies.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#7
Once the state and capitalism are eliminated, along with all the other hierarchies, we will have no need for violence. Before hand, violence will be reduced with the removal of hierarchies.
Do you really think you will live to see that?With France and our own Obamma running around getting into fights it seems we are going the other way. (But I am sure some would still blame that on Bush!):p
 
Aug 2010
92
0
NH
#8
What is most unique among the varying ideologies was what is offered in Anarcho-Pacifism. In this type, you cannot preach the true righteousness of an Anarchist society - as opposed to the inherent violence and immorality of the state - unless you are non-violent and peaceful in nature. Further, the violence perpetrated by the anti-government protestors in Egypt would be directly opposed by those who support the ideas of peaceful resistance at all costs, rather than stopping the state at all costs (including violent overthrow and demonstration). To a pacifist who also believes that government is illegitimate by its very nature because of its ?lawful? coercion of others to follow its own ideology; anarcho-pacifism would consequently not support coercion of any kind ? even on their part for their ends. This is where the other schools of anti-government philosophy isolate their own outcast in the pacifist of the group.

But as always, the role of violence and beating back the corrupt state has always been a turning point for Anarchist philosophy. Is violence (a form of coercion) acceptable under the circumstance of resisting the state which they see as one of the ultimate evils perpetrated on society?

If true anarchism is total opposition to force and coercion that the state commands over society than wouldn?t engage in these same acts be a violation of what anarchism is trying to achieve? In order to stop of the proliferation of the state into our lives, is violence and force necessary to achieve it? Since according to most all anarchists, government is inherently coercive; than Anarchy and Pacifism must go hand-in-hand in order to separate itself from the immorality of the state.

Once we get passed the idea that true anarchism is pacifistic resistance against the organized violence that is inevitable of all governing systems, than we must bring into play the most played out debate of all: the Ends and the Means. In the special case of a peaceful anarchy philosophy, the means are the ends and the ends are the means. The means act as an expression of the values an anarchist group wishes upon society, but also does not force another into. Their ends are, consequently, a society in which no system of power forces its values or agendas on others as well. By supporting this structure, anarcho-pacifists are simultaneously fulfilling their ends by continuing their means of non-violence and non-coercion.

Perhaps it requires a deeper look. Most of all, when one finally realizes that not all Anarchy can or should be labeled as bad, violent or destructive to morality and society; we can begin to comprehend how a truly consistent anarchist must always be a consistent pacifist if they wish to bring Real change?
I sympathize with anarcho-pacifism, but I am not quite sure about the role of violence in self defense. At least all anarcho-capitalists agree with the non-aggression principle, but complete pacifism is a step further that I have not come to judgment on yet. I was initially influenced by Tolstoy, but I am now skeptical of his arguments which seem to be based on some sort of quasi-mysticism rather than empirical philosophy.

I would suggest that Somalia has come closest to anarchism. You DO see how 'wonderful' anarchism works, yes? We fascists love to use Somalia as a shining example of how much of a joke is anarchism.


Somalia was born from the deepest, statist hell-hole one can imagine. Given that this statist environment was destroyed nearly overnight, one cannot realistically expect a modern, moral, and prosperous society to also emerge overnight. In other words, the ills of Somalia are not due to its current (last I checked) stateless environment, but the bruises of recent statist abuse.

Secondly, it is remarkable how much Somalian life has improved since being stateless. If you look at the data, Somalian life has improved in nearly every facet of life since being stateless, and I would direct you to the following paper and its references:

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
 
Mar 2011
746
159
Rhondda, Cymru
#9
The problem is, how do you GET from this shambles to anarchy, or how act pacifically when the jack-booted primitives will lock you up and kill you for not killing? That is why Lenin and Co came to believe in the necessity of a Party, with unfortunate consequences. It seems to me more reasonable to celebrate the fact that this species is totally doomed, and quite a cheerful prospect it is, when you look at what its 'leaders' are like.
 
Aug 2010
92
0
NH
#10
The problem is, how do you GET from this shambles to anarchy, or how act pacifically when the jack-booted primitives will lock you up and kill you for not killing? That is why Lenin and Co came to believe in the necessity of a Party, with unfortunate consequences. It seems to me more reasonable to celebrate the fact that this species is totally doomed, and quite a cheerful prospect it is, when you look at what its 'leaders' are like.
Perhaps the problem is that man believes he requires a [external] leader in the first place, instead of recognizing himself as a sovereign entity? To sacrifice one's rational mind - I believe it to be a sin.

In my readings, most people believe the solution is multi-generational. Children have to be raised in a non-coercive environment so that we can build a more peaceful world. Today, children are taught the language of violence as early as a few months old, and thus when they become adults that's the only thing they know how to speak.

This might interest you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNLq1Y_OFEQ
 
Mar 2011
746
159
Rhondda, Cymru
#11
It sounds interesting, but I find it difficult to hear. The problem is to establish non-coercive environments for enough people. Neill's Summerhill has been quite impressive, but very few children have been educated there.
 

Similar Discussions