3 ms·

“[Pacifism] is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality.” -- George Orwell In other words, you can be as “committed”

“[Pacifism] is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality.” -- George Orwell In other words, you can be as “committed” to pacifism as you want, but your life and freedom, and your indulgence in your pacifist philosophy, is made possible by other people’s commitment to the defense against violence with violence, and, often, to their sacrifice.

ARandomerDude 5y ago
I'm not a pacifist (combat veteran, actually) but I'll point out that you may be missing something on their side of the argument. There are some things worth dying for (for example, freedom as you point out). A pacifist has a similar mentality, but believes not taking a life is worth dying for. Both the pacifist and the non-pacifist want freedom, but the pacifist would rather surrender liberty than kill if that's what it comes to. By analogy, I want to keep my car, but I would not shoot anyone who tried to steal it even though it's legal where I live. I might hate what they're doing but I value their life more than my car.
- leephillips 5y ago
  Of course people with a variety of stances on the issue all call themselves “pacifists”, just as there are “vegetarians” who eat fish. I respect the choices that you describe, because they’re your choices, and don’t endanger other people. The pacifists I consider morally obtuse are those who refuse to see that they enjoy their freedom under the umbrella of institutions that are decidedly not pacifist. It’s a kind of philosophical parasitism. And the pacifists that I have real contempt for are those who would refuse to defend other people against violence. “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.” -- John Adams
- philwelch 5y ago
  I think you're providing a charitable accounting of pacifists that might describe the best among them. Orwell (whom you are indirectly responding to) gives some acknowledgment to these types but is cynical towards others: > The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of the western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransferred. "Notes on Nationalism", 1945 (https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...)
- klipt 5y ago
  The point is that if you transplanted Amish society out of the protective USA and into somewhere more violent like Central Africa, they'd probably all end up dead, or the survivors would be the ones that abandoned pacifism.
guenthert 5y ago
That's a very pessimistic (and I'm afraid self-fulfilling) position. Costa Rica abolished their army in 1949 and hasn't been invaded since. Why shouldn't an Amish Nation fare as well?
- leephillips 5y ago
  Costa Rica is a wonderful place that has benefited from spending funds that used to go to maintaining the army on improving civil society. But this is not even close to a pacifist success story. The army was abolished by the man who became president by winning a civil war. Costa Rica maintains armed forces to patrol the border, combat drug trafficking, and maintain internal order, as well as an armed police force. But they don’t call any of these things “armies”. They have a defense alliance with the United States. If another country tries to invade them, the US will use violence to defend them. Is it pacifism to depend on someone else’s willingness to sacrifice for you? Costa Rica only exists as a country because they successfully used violence to repel a private army raised by a US citizen who wanted to annex them to the US. Call me pessimistic if you want. I prefer to believe that I have a realistic view of the role of violence in the world.
- burnafter184 5y ago
  I'm no historian, so this is a very rough synthesis: In history there's a handful of cases where there have been what are viewed as probably warless societies. Honestly I wouldn't say they fared any worse than warring states. Indus Valley Civilization, Rapa Nui Civilization, Early Sumeria... I'm sure there's countless others in reality but those are what I recall off the top of my head. I find it difficult to actually piece together a narrative where war is actually a necessity. Empire itself, abstracted, is really just the displacement of toil which isn't a "necessary evil" by any means. And by far and large that is what virtually all war has been predicated on up to World War 2 which justified itself with teleological underpinnings like Marxism and Fascist ideologies; perhaps a few exceptions being outright hostilities triggered by emotional kings. Ultimately it's survivorship bias, but the surviving population is selecting for all the worst conceivable parameters, which in turn has perverted our whole understanding of civilization. It's made it seem as if war is necessary, that defense strategies and assets must be in place, etc... I don't think this is really the case, but creating a policy system that is totally forbidding of the powers necessary to conjure the public force is a difficulty in and of itself. I do also suspect that people who do tow the line of government aren't self-contained individuals, they do themselves require laws, governance, and espouse things like inevitable war are exactly those predisposed to causing it, and they're projecting themselves.
rsj_hn 5y ago
That is a beautiful quote by Orwell, who had a knack for getting at the essence of things. But I would disagree with the notion that one society should only adopt a belief if it generalizes to the entire planet. That's not really a useful yardstick to judge feasibility in a world that requires heterogeneity and in which different groups have different pressures. Universalism is a bigger lie than pacifism. So what role does pacifism play? Let's reinterpret the Orwell quote -- those who have money and guns can be Pacifists. I would say yes. If they were militarists, it would end badly as you would get powerful warmongering states. So a bias towards pacifism among those who strong and in no danger makes sense, just as a bias towards militarism among those who are weaker and in danger makes a lot of sense. Then we can look at the other aspect. If you are a radically different subgroup embedded in a larger population, you want to keep your head down. You don't want to be seen as a threat. So the Amish, famously apolitical and non-militaristic, are more tolerated by the rest of society.
- leephillips 5y ago
  I’m pretty sure Orwell was talking about other people’s guns.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    Of course, other people's guns serving to protect you. So really your guns, from the point of view of the larger society as a single unit, but other people's guns, from the point of view of an individual person in that society.

ARandomerDude 5y ago

I'm not a pacifist (combat veteran, actually) but I'll point out that you may be missing something on their side of the argument. There are some things worth dying for (for example, freedom as you point out). A pacifist has a similar mentality, but believes not taking a life is worth dying for. Both the pacifist and the non-pacifist want freedom, but the pacifist would rather surrender liberty than kill if that's what it comes to. By analogy, I want to keep my car, but I would not shoot anyone who tried to steal it even though it's legal where I live. I might hate what they're doing but I value their life more than my car.

leephillips 5y ago
Of course people with a variety of stances on the issue all call themselves “pacifists”, just as there are “vegetarians” who eat fish. I respect the choices that you describe, because they’re your choices, and don’t endanger other people. The pacifists I consider morally obtuse are those who refuse to see that they enjoy their freedom under the umbrella of institutions that are decidedly not pacifist. It’s a kind of philosophical parasitism. And the pacifists that I have real contempt for are those who would refuse to defend other people against violence. “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.” -- John Adams
philwelch 5y ago
I think you're providing a charitable accounting of pacifists that might describe the best among them. Orwell (whom you are indirectly responding to) gives some acknowledgment to these types but is cynical towards others: > The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of the western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransferred. "Notes on Nationalism", 1945 (https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...)
klipt 5y ago
The point is that if you transplanted Amish society out of the protective USA and into somewhere more violent like Central Africa, they'd probably all end up dead, or the survivors would be the ones that abandoned pacifism.

guenthert 5y ago

That's a very pessimistic (and I'm afraid self-fulfilling) position. Costa Rica abolished their army in 1949 and hasn't been invaded since. Why shouldn't an Amish Nation fare as well?

leephillips 5y ago
Costa Rica is a wonderful place that has benefited from spending funds that used to go to maintaining the army on improving civil society. But this is not even close to a pacifist success story. The army was abolished by the man who became president by winning a civil war. Costa Rica maintains armed forces to patrol the border, combat drug trafficking, and maintain internal order, as well as an armed police force. But they don’t call any of these things “armies”. They have a defense alliance with the United States. If another country tries to invade them, the US will use violence to defend them. Is it pacifism to depend on someone else’s willingness to sacrifice for you? Costa Rica only exists as a country because they successfully used violence to repel a private army raised by a US citizen who wanted to annex them to the US. Call me pessimistic if you want. I prefer to believe that I have a realistic view of the role of violence in the world.
burnafter184 5y ago
I'm no historian, so this is a very rough synthesis: In history there's a handful of cases where there have been what are viewed as probably warless societies. Honestly I wouldn't say they fared any worse than warring states. Indus Valley Civilization, Rapa Nui Civilization, Early Sumeria... I'm sure there's countless others in reality but those are what I recall off the top of my head. I find it difficult to actually piece together a narrative where war is actually a necessity. Empire itself, abstracted, is really just the displacement of toil which isn't a "necessary evil" by any means. And by far and large that is what virtually all war has been predicated on up to World War 2 which justified itself with teleological underpinnings like Marxism and Fascist ideologies; perhaps a few exceptions being outright hostilities triggered by emotional kings. Ultimately it's survivorship bias, but the surviving population is selecting for all the worst conceivable parameters, which in turn has perverted our whole understanding of civilization. It's made it seem as if war is necessary, that defense strategies and assets must be in place, etc... I don't think this is really the case, but creating a policy system that is totally forbidding of the powers necessary to conjure the public force is a difficulty in and of itself. I do also suspect that people who do tow the line of government aren't self-contained individuals, they do themselves require laws, governance, and espouse things like inevitable war are exactly those predisposed to causing it, and they're projecting themselves.

rsj_hn 5y ago

That is a beautiful quote by Orwell, who had a knack for getting at the essence of things. But I would disagree with the notion that one society should only adopt a belief if it generalizes to the entire planet. That's not really a useful yardstick to judge feasibility in a world that requires heterogeneity and in which different groups have different pressures. Universalism is a bigger lie than pacifism. So what role does pacifism play? Let's reinterpret the Orwell quote -- those who have money and guns can be Pacifists. I would say yes. If they were militarists, it would end badly as you would get powerful warmongering states. So a bias towards pacifism among those who strong and in no danger makes sense, just as a bias towards militarism among those who are weaker and in danger makes a lot of sense. Then we can look at the other aspect. If you are a radically different subgroup embedded in a larger population, you want to keep your head down. You don't want to be seen as a threat. So the Amish, famously apolitical and non-militaristic, are more tolerated by the rest of society.

leephillips 5y ago
I’m pretty sure Orwell was talking about other people’s guns.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Of course, other people's guns serving to protect you. So really your guns, from the point of view of the larger society as a single unit, but other people's guns, from the point of view of an individual person in that society.