• [Gelöschter Benutzer] schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 11. Feb. 2012, 15:56

    Pacifism

    Hello everyone. I thought it'd be interesting, in light of events over the last 12 months (Arab Spring), to get a discussion going over which is a more effective when dealing with authoritarian regimes; pacifist resistance or militarian methods.

    I am personally of the opinion, violence cannot oppose authoritarianism as violence is an authoritarian act. I think examples like the rise of communism after WW2 in Germany, the failure to establish infrastructure in Afganistan after the invasion and the disaster that was the Iraq invasion all prove this point. It seems to me that militarian methodology is far too slapdash and creates far more problems than it solves. I'm also convinced most people are of the same opinion as me, as shown by the events of February 15th 2003.

    It also seems obvious that revolutions don't work because, to quote Engels;
    A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.
    Engels, On Authority (1872)

    and I ask again, can freedom and peace be attained through authoritarian methods? (I am fully aware of the glorious example of the pacifist revolutions in India discounting my generalisation, but one can hardly consider them as standard for revolutionary practices).

    • SxHxCx schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 11. Feb. 2012, 22:05
    Freedom dies when authoritarism begins. Peace can not exist during a revolution or rebellion.
    I want to remeber you a thing: the "pacifist revolution" in India has bring strenght to middle class. I suggest to see " End:Civ " documentary that will show the failure of peaceful organizations and in India there was a violent group that fought for freedom against stupids methods of Gandhi.

    • [Gelöschter Benutzer] schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 11. Feb. 2012, 23:03
    SxHxCx said:
    Freedom dies when authoritarism begins. Peace can not exist during a revolution or rebellion.

    Agreed with the first statement and while peaceful revolution is difficult it has happen i.e. India. Also peaceful rebellion has historically been very successful.

    I suggest to see " End:Civ " documentary that will show the failure of peaceful organizations and in India there was a violent group that fought for freedom against stupids methods of Gandhi.
    I'm sorry I started to watch it but after 10 minutes it was clearly rubbish. While I am a strong supporter of environmentalism, that documentary was just neo-luddite rubbish and nieve primitivism. Half of its claims are completely false i.e. if the earths temperature was 10 degrees hotter not even bacteria could survive. News flash not only are we technically in an iceage but for millions of years during the Permian era earth was far hotter. Accepted we do need to change our ways, but don't make up crap to spread fear. If you'd like to tell me exactly what point in the "documentary" it starts to criticise Ghandi I'll be happy to watch, but in all honesty I'm skeptical to its validity. The fact is Ghandi's methods implemented positive change. He might not have formed an anarchist society, but when you compare India before and after, it's obvious the revolution was successful.

    • ClaraWP schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 29. Feb. 2012, 22:23
    http://www.isreview.org/issues/03/anarchism.pdf

    ^found this interesting to read, you may or may not..

    • ClaraWP schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 29. Feb. 2012, 22:28
    I have to say, I think that a the action of a revolution and authoritarianism in itself can be very different though, yes a revolution can be the most authoritarian thing ever but a revolution is more about the force in itself and the movement than the whole commanding people and enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. I don't think it has to be completely authoritarian. I think one can be very anti-authoritarian but pro-revolution.

    • [Gelöschter Benutzer] schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 1. Mär. 2012, 0:19
    There is one example I've ever found that denies my generalisation and that's India. It's undeniable that generally revolutions (even anarchist) are extremely authoritarian i.e. Ukraine. A revolution involves the coercion of the will of counter-revolutionaries inorder to function. This is why revolutions can only be authoritarian (again accepted India denies the generalisation).

    • ClaraWP schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 1. Mär. 2012, 18:25
    But i don't think a revolution has to be enforcing strict obedience to authority, it can be forceful and influencial and of course it can be enforcing strict obediance but i don't think it has to. So do you think that a revolution cannot be anti-authoritarian (as in the action, not what is wanting to be achieved)? And how do you think we ought to go about anarchism in the UK? (and then maybe global)

    • ClaraWP schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 1. Mär. 2012, 18:26
    *can be authoritarian

    • [Gelöschter Benutzer] schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 1. Mär. 2012, 19:00
    ClaraWP said:
    But i don't think a revolution has to be enforcing strict obedience to authority, it can be forceful and influencial and of course it can be enforcing strict obediance but i don't think it has to.

    I'd point you to the Engels quote in my original post. A revolution is a form of social coercion. The coercion of an individual's will is an authoritarian action.

    So do you think that a revolution cannot be anti-authoritarian (as in the action, not what is wanting to be achieved)?
    I have said frequently that I think the Indian Independance Movement does contradict my generalisations about revolutions. I'd say though that this is very unrepresentative of revolutions. How would you deal with reactionaries in a non-authoritarian revolution?

    And how do you think we ought to go about anarchism in the UK? (and then maybe global)
    I'd say T.A.Z's, counter economics, peaceful protests and anarchic-community projects are all effective alternatives.

    • ClaraWP schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 1. Mär. 2012, 22:35
    I don't think there is much to do with reactionaries in an anti-authoritarian revolution (in the sense of 'dealiing with them') which I would find to be moral and the right thing to do really if i'm completely honest. I think we could deal with then in an authoritarian revolution but that's contradictive to what the revolution would be trying to succeed and to me not ideal (far from it!) or good (far from it!) or progressive (far from it!) and i feel a large part of anarchy is the idea of being free to be who you want and do what you want. I think we could inspire and educate the reactionaries and some of them would change their way of seeing things but I don't really think anything else can be done, I think everyone's entitled to their own beliefs and opinions (I may strongly disagree but I feel everyone has their rights to have their beliefs and express them to an extent but I think there's only certain ways to express views and violence towards a being or anything like that, to me, isnt the way to express and is completely wrong and against what I stand for) I think as a public we would accept it really but would attempt to inspire the reactionaries and attempt to ensure nothing drastic would be done by these reactionaries. But I also think in a revolution the amount on reactionaries would decrease because people would understand about freedom and want it... There isn't much that can be done in terms of actions, I think anyway.

    Okay and what are your methods for building up to a revolution? How would a revolution come about? How would anarchy be portrayed to the public?

    • [Gelöschter Benutzer] schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 2. Mär. 2012, 10:05
    ClaraWP said:
    Okay and what are your methods for building up to a revolution? How would a revolution come about? How would anarchy be portrayed to the public?

    I wouldn't wish a revolution, for the reasons I gave in the above posts. Because of this I advocate any methods for building a revolution.

    As for how I think anarchy should be portrayed to the public, I think anarchist activities need to focus less on protests, wildcats etc (without disregarding them all together). Instead I personally believe our focus should move onto forming new social systems and projects that are beneficial to the community e.g. Food Not Bomb centres or free stores.

    • ClaraWP schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 4. Mär. 2012, 21:40
    Oh sorry I misread/understood/interpreted. Sorry.

    Okay, fair enough, makes sense :) and will the food and everything be donated? And would you give your food to everyone or only anarchists or people of certains types or whatever?

    • [Gelöschter Benutzer] schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 5. Mär. 2012, 6:42
    That's for the individual's involved to decide. I honestly have no wish to design anarchist activities.

    • ClaraWP schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 6. Mär. 2012, 21:45
    Okay:) Fair enough

  • I've always followed the idea of "no war but class war."

    • [Gelöschter Benutzer] schrieb...
    • Benutzer
    • 6. Jul. 2013, 5:59
    bring the war home

Anonyme Benutzer dürfen keine Beiträge schreiben. Bitte log dich ein oder registriere dich, um Beiträge in den Foren schreiben zu können.