# less_retarded_wiki

main page, file list (652), source, commit RSS feed, report abuse, stats, random article, consoomer version

# Anarcho Pacifism

Anarcho pacifism (anpac) is a form of anarchism which categorically rejects any violence (even so called "self defense"). Anarcho pacifists argue that since anarchism opposes oppression and social hierarchy and since violence is the most prominent tool of oppression and hierarchy, it logically has to be rejected. This makes anarcho pacifism possibly the one truest and purest form of anarchism. This form of anarchism uses a black and white flag.

All (true) anarchists agree at least on the fact that as long as social hierarchy exists, it is going to be abused. And the same can be posited of violence -- if we allow but even rare instances of "justified violence", for example what is called "self defense" or "criminal punishment", it is inevitably going to be abused, as has been repeatedly witnessed in history. Probably most acts of the worst offensive violence imaginable have been justified as "self defense", "preventive measures", "provoked war" and so on, in a belief (possibly even justified) that "if we don't destroy them now, later on they will destroy us". An attack is defense too early, a defense is attack too late, and in the end they're all the same kind of violence. And violence spawns more violence ("eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind"). The only hope of ever abandoning the vicious circle of violence is to reject it under any circumstances, even for the risk of suffering "injustice" and destruction.

Historically anarcho pacifists such as Leo Tolstoy and Petr Chelcicky were usually religiously motivated for rejecting violence, however this stance may also come from reason or other than religious beliefs, e.g. simple empathy or believing that "turning the other cheek" will be a better example to others than revenge, or pure unconditional love of life which one simply feels and chooses to follow without the need for any further justification.

Legitimacy of violence is a controversial topic among anarchists and, as it seems, absolute pacifists are in minority (like those with most correct views usually are). Most anarchists sit probably around the middle, accepting necessary violence but in general avoiding it and showing a lot of empathy. The pro-violence camp usually argues that we need violence to counter the violence of the oppressors, that without violence we can't achieve anything or sustain a society because a single maniac gone on a killing spree can singlehandedly destroy it.

We, LRS, advocate anarcho pacifism. What answer do we give to the pro-violence camp then? What are our arguments for absolute pacifism? Well, firstly let's say it straight that the question ultimately comes down to fundamental beliefs about what's moral, to what degree ends justify the means etc., so we cannot "force" anyone to accept absolute pacifism, BUT neither the opposition can force their acceptance of violence -- about violence there's a choice that will stand on some form of belief whether we want it or not. And "force" isn't how trust in pacifism should be earned either -- it should be adopted voluntarily after gaining enough insight and reaching a sort of enlightenment, knowing it stands not only on some logic but on beliefs and experience as well. If people were nurtured from the child in non violent thinking and provided good examples from the adults, pacifism could be the world wide way of thinking, but of course in our current, highly violent and fucked up days it's very difficult to unlearn the way of violence and so there are very few pacifist. They have to find the way themselves, turn back against all their education and then suffer walking against the immense force of the mainstream. Hence reaching such enlightenment is difficult and currently needs help, and to this end we can only provide little more than an imperfect description of the non violent way and contrast it with its opposite. So: indeed we see how violence can be a short term solution, even to preventing harm of many, however from the long term perspective we only see the complete delegitimisation of violence as a path towards a truly mature society. Yes, shooting a terrorist can save dozens of people he's endangering, earning immediate "net good", but there's the other side of the coin also such as communicating with such act that "murder is a solution now", or giving the terrorist's comrades yet better motivation for taking revenge for their dead friend. Primitive people seek immediate rewards without considering long term implications and a primitive society likewise, which is why we have capitalism in place, but LRS aims to be a mature society. Shooting a dangerous terrorist is an extreme solution, maximizing immediate short term benefit, and letting him run free to murder hundreds of people without acting is also an extreme solution on the other end of the spectrum -- in this case extreme good, the ideal, maximizing long term good; all the people killed by the terrorist would die as if from a natural disaster (which now manifests not by falling rocks or earthquakes but by an unfortunate lunatic with a gun), and by not fighting back, like martyrs, they'd help the survivors and whole society stay more firm in its pacifism. In real world there aren't just two extreme solutions but a whole spectrum: for example a middle way could be using non lethal force to capture the terrorist, but perhaps for the price of a few innocent lives which lethal force could prevent. And so we always have the choice of how to balance idealism and pragmatism, good and evil, better future or immediate reward, and here LRS simply says: absolute pacifism is the ideal, it's the good, and try to pursue it. If someone can voluntarily give his life for an ideal, we applaud him, but we know all people are imperfect and have limits, but we simply say: try as much as possible to be good, tend to the maximally ideal. We realize a complete, 100% non violent society may be virtually unachievable, if only for those few mentally ill who will just want to kill for no reason at all, but with enough education and work it will be possible to establish a world with absolute minimum of violence, a society in which firstly people grow up in a completely non violent environment so that they never even consider violence a possible solution, and who additionally have all their needs secured so that they don't have a reason for considering violence either. We must at least try to approach this ideal as closely as possible. A small hope can be seen if we consider how our society already treats children: it's possible that most people today think that NO child should ever be harmed, no matter what, even if the child in question is dangerous or already committed murder -- yes, such child will be captured and locked up in some sort of institution, but very few will advocate lethal force, execution, torture or suffering in true prison here. In this case people will typically show empathy towards the child and direct their blame towards the parents. Now if only we could extend our thinking from children and their behavior being their parents' responsibility to all humans (and all living beings) and their behavior being their society's responsibility, we might just achieve our ideal.

## See Also

- nonviolence
- Anarchism
- Jainism
- Buddhism

Powered by nothing. All content available under CC0 1.0 (public domain). Send comments and corrections to drummyfish at disroot dot org.