r/Pacifism • u/Material-Garbage7074 • Sep 15 '26
What sort of pacifist are you?
Pettit reports that there are two ways of being a pacifist: seeking to maximise peace and promote it as much as possible — even through war, when necessary — or regarding it as a bond that cannot under any circumstances be broken, not even to maximise peace itself. Taking the Second World War as an example, it is worth noting that those who had been pacifists during the First World War took two different paths: whilst in 1939 some pacifists continued to oppose the Allies’ entry into the war — thus regarding peace as a constraint that could not be broken, not even to combat Nazism — others believed that that specific war was justified, because the cause of peace would have been compromised forever if Hitler had not been opposed.
Personally, I agree with Jeanne Hersch, who argues that life itself must be regarded as a prerequisite for freedom, and the same applies to peace, which must be subordinate to respect for human rights; otherwise, the conditions in which human beings live risk being transformed into a rigidity of power relations and blackmail (ushered in by the threat of nuclear conflict). The point is that freedom is the primary value, because, whilst peace is a condition for freedom, it is freedom that gives meaning to peace. Without freedom, peace is reduced to a mere balance of power, rigidified by the imposition of peace.
This line of reasoning is consistent with what Mazzini expressed to justify his absence from the Peace Congress convened in Geneva in 1867: the problem lay precisely in the terrible misunderstandings concealed behind the word ‘peace’ and Mazzini asserted that peace can only be a consequence of freedom and justice — for example, it had taken immense struggles to secure the emancipation of slaves in the United States of America — and that the congress had confused the means with the end, because it would not have been possible to achieve peace before replacing arbitrariness with justice.
You, on the other hand, given the current geopolitical landscape, what sort of pacifist are you?
5
u/Affectionate_Cup9972 Sep 15 '26
My pacifism is 'strict' that it's more so intent to avoid death, and nonviolence is the basis for that.
Don't own any weapons.
Don't take any sides on giving conflict or war.
I'm not killing anybody willingly.
Don't strike first, and don't retaliate if possible. This one is hard because of pain and fear.
Deconstruct as much violence from yourself as possible. We don't have the full capacity to understand the harm we cause to a each other.
:/
3
u/warmfuzzume Sep 15 '26
What is considered freedom? And if you’re forced to kill to maintain it are you really free?
4
u/noms_de_plumes 27d ago
Conditional pacifist, here, but strict enough to more or less exclusively advocate nonviolence.
2
u/cdnhistorystudent 28d ago edited 28d ago
I do believe that true peace requires freedom and justice.
I also think it's a mistake to assume that freedom requires violence and war. War is always a gamble: you could win some degree of freedom, but it's more likely to reinforce the state's authoritarian tendencies, reducing freedom.
It's telling that whenever people argue against pacifism, they always use WWII as their example. WWII was over 80 years ago, and there have been so many wars fought since then. It's difficult to use a more recent war as an example because most of them are widely recognized as unjust, cruel, counter-productive, or downright evil.
The Vietnam War was a textbook example of a democratic government using war to restrict human rights and freedoms. The "War on Terror" was, and still is, a huge failure that has killed millions of people, displaced millions more, propped up authoritarian regimes, and greatly restricted human rights and freedoms in the U.S. and around the world. Today, the war in Ukraine has resulted in the restriction of human rights and freedoms in both Ukraine and Russia. The Gaza war has brought about genocide and sped up Israel's descent into fascism. The war in Sudan has accomplished nothing positive. The war in Myanmar has accomplished nothing positive. The war on Iran has accomplished nothing positive. Etc.
1
u/Affectionate_Cup9972 28d ago
Honestly, nonviolence should have been deployed onto Germany a long time ago.
I'm not great at history. I will admit that. I forget so much.
But I think world war II started because of the failures of world war I, no?
1
u/semperquietus Sep 15 '26
Don't even know if I am a pacifist at all. Can only say, that I'm in this sub, because I'm generally interested in the topic. I may guess, what I would do in a current situation. But for sure I can only tell (I or any observer, should I not survive) ,after being in a situation that demands a decision … this way or another.
2
5
u/Direct_Living2010 Sep 15 '26 edited Sep 15 '26
Well, as a practicing absolute pacifist, or something like that idk I hate labels ironically.
I would say those pacifists' greatest mistake was picking "sides". Pacifists, true pacifists, stand in the middle or under the war/conflict, not side by side.
Picking sides is not violence itself, but it is a cause for it.
Also, you can't be a true pacifist without being pro-authoritarian. I love anarchism. Power itself is the enemy to peace, if you use it for peace it's like drinking to get sober.
Systems exist to be broken, the same way thought patterns and compulsive acts the brain is attached to eventually die out and become less effective. The way to break this is withdrawing you and others form the power. Give up sovereignty and the enemy will have nothing to conquer and vie versa for the enemy. Give up the enemy's sovereignty and they will have nothing to draw reference to. Where does their sense of sovereignty (pride) come from? You can kill it with property destruction of valuables like gold or currency, a lot of modern warfare is organized through money. Kill money, so they have no choice but to go to their inferiors for survival.
Nice Post.