A belated response to Mr Orwell

[Patroklos]

Math majors, glorified service postions. I have lost what little respect I had for you before.

Math has little to do with the human condition

[molly bloom]

George Orwell to Tribune, December 7th, 1944, deploring the wholesale condemnation of pacifism/pacifists:

" The important thing is to discover which individuals are honest, and which are not, and the usual blanket accusation merely makes this more difficult. The atmosphere of hatred in which controversy is conducted blinds people to considerations of this kind."

[East Street Trader]

Nice find, Molly.

But the quote demonstrates sympathy for "honest" pacifists - not for the idea of pacifism itself.

Even at the end of his life, deepest held political beliefs proved empty and the war in which he fought and nearly died lost, I doubt that Orwell would have said a word in favour of something he would have regarded as too weak kneed and a cop out.

He was too committed to trying to do worthwhile things to find the mere avoidance of doing harm attractive.

[Whaleboy]

They are also known as cowards.

Then I am a coward. I will stand up for what I believe in, but I will not fight and die for something that I am not in love with, so to speak. In other words, I would be prepared to fight and die for my friends or family. I draw that distinction between individual relationships and political ideas or certain philosophies, which are invariably pieces of paper and intellectual pornography. Only when the cuts of that paper will effect me then I shall defend myself, in other words, the Jew fighting the threat of Nazi invasion.

Coward is a word that implies emasculation, and I do not consider violence to be cool or particularly desirable. I see no glory in combat and I shy away from battle because the risk of me or my friends being caused, as well as potential damage to the "furniture" (to steal a line from Arther Conan Doyle) far outweighs that emotional and adrenal rush that causes you to fight.

"Coward" is a pathetic word. Bravery? That means nothing. Honour? Testicular BS. I deal in love and logic. I dare say, however, that one who stands up for his views, against the flood of popular opinion and the idiocy of the blood-lusting masses is demonstrating more balls than anyone who gets swept up in a call to battle (sic 1914 Britain).

"I don´t like his POV, so he can´t be intelligent"

I never said he was unintelligent. I just said he was unintelligent in that area.

So he doesn't want to fight in any circumstance (the only difference between me and Gandhi in that respect would be personal safety, and even that as a last resort to me), therefore he is unintelligent? You need to provide further evidence for that position, but knowing that such a stance is nigh-on impossible (the question of demonstrable intelligence), then I suggest to choose another word. Perhaps insane? So be it. Insane people take actions that the logic of the present context would deem irrational, and yet, we define our own contexts .

Ted Striker: (to a point)

He didn't use violence, he advocated everyone not to use violence, thus he's a pacifist. QED.

And it didn't rely on the opposition using violence against him. Violence was how the Brits kept control of India. If they didn't use violence, they would lose India, and the goal would be accomplished with absolutely no bloodshed.

Patroklos: You are harming your own credibility by using ad hominems. These only display a lack of logic, generally what you do in a debate when you're losing. I'm not having a go, I'm just advising you. I like critical, reasonable, logical debates, when they degenerate into flamefests they cease to become useful, becoming fun instead .

Maybe I would have chickened out.

But I hope not. The notion that I, in my turn, should have gone and dropped bombs on whomsoever might be underneath, man woman or child, is altogether horrible.

East Street Trader:

I suggest that you would have had far more courage in 1914 had you chosen not to fight in the war. It, like all others, is a pointless spilling of blood for either money, or a fallacious political ideal. Blood flowing on pieces of paper and cold steel.

Patroklos: What are you basically saying? Total non-violence is cowardly? Pacifism is a flawed position. Please clarify yours in an antithesis to my hypothesis.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I would agree. Bur their are some people who will not participate in violence for anything.

They are also known as cowards.

the other kind are often called murderers ...
it's so easy to make generalisations

[Ramo]

Math majors, glorified service postions.

Physics & Math. And I'll prouldly serve humanity.

I have lost what little respect I had for you before.

I never wanted your respect. And rest assured, the feeling is mutual.

Math has little to do with the human condition

You learn little about the human condition through reading about it in a text book.

[BeBro]

About pacifism - I have lots of respect of Gandhi and his achievements. I also have no problem at all respecting pacifism as individual choice.

I just think it becomes useless when there´s a conflict where one side already has decided that it is fine to use violence (and that is and it was as we all know rather the rule). Esp. for governments it is simply not an option to go pacifist IMO in such cases. If an agressor decides to bomb you back into the stone age, pure pacifism is suicide.

[East Street Trader]

I will have a go at putting the pacifist's viewpoint on that, BeBro.

Don't expect a killer argument - this is one of the fundamentally difficult problems.

Let us take Hitler's Germany and Bush/Blair's USA/UK. Two cases of countries which, under their various leaders, were committed to military expansion - in Hitler's case to create an empire in the time hallowed way, in Bush/Blair's case... well who knows.

Anyway whether the motive which drives the use of military force is straightforward empire building or something more complex the position is the same if you lie in the path of the enemy army.

So what should someone in Poland or Belgium or Austria or the Rheinland have done when confronted with Hitler's forces and what should an Iraqi have done when confronted with US and British forces?

Your answer is to put up the best fight possible and try to win a military victory. And that is what Europe, and later Russia did faced with Hitler's military aggression and what Iraq recently did as well.

The pacifist says don't put up a military resistance in which the resources of the state are concentrated into a war machine. Seek instead to resist by other, more individual, means.

So, of course, in 1939 Hitler would have quickly built the empire he wanted and last year the US and British forces would have taken Iraq even more quickly than they did.

Would resistance by means other than war have subsequently had an effect? Well it is impossible to know. It is easy to intuit that in 1939 a lot more Jews and gypsies and mentally ill people would have been gassed. And lots of people brave enough to refuse to co-operate with the invaders would also no doubt have fared very badly.

My own intuition suggests that the empire created by the military expansion would, however, have failed to get established. I believe the German people, miles from home, would have quite quickly wondered what the hell they were doing occupying themselves with oppressing the people of the countries occupied when what they wanted to do was to go home and to get on with their lives.

Say I am right and the empire crumbled to dust after three or four years and let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that history then produced, by 2004, exactly the same position as has now been reached. How would a balance sheet look which compared the misery caused by WWII to the misery of enduring a period of enforced occupation and mounting a resistance to that occupation?

Well perhaps the balance of misery would be quite close. But my own suspicion is that the misery of the terrible warfare that took place would actually be the greater.

There is at least a chance that this is so.

Although you have to believe in the bravery of a whole lot of people acting individually or in small groups - and in such intrinsic propositions as that the Germans were conned into going in for an empire and that, at heart, they would actually rather have stayed at home and got on with their lives to think that any of that is real.

Not impossibly things to believe, though.

I can make one further point which does not depend on such beliefs. It is this. If we posit a military aggression to-day affecting two protagonists each armed with the weapons now available then there can be only one answer to how the balance of misery would fall. Because no one doubts that the end result of any war between well armed modern states remotely approaching the scale of WWII must and will be the destruction of all life on earth. Quite simply any alternative whatsover must be better than that.

So, in a sense, we must find some new way to oppose military aggression. Because the old way is known to lead to the end of all things.

To some extent my intuitive ideas as to what the outcome of resisting someone like Hitler after allowing invasion may now get tested a bit by watching what happens in Iraq. The US and UK have conquered Iraq. But the people there have not laid down under it.

Will the invader stick it out using whaever level of oppression is required to keep the resisting people in check? Or will they, sooner or later, leave with their tails between their legs?

Of course that does not compare like with 100% like. Hitler is known to be someone willing to use extreme oppression whereas Bush/Blair may not be. But equally the two are not wholly disimilar. Both being willing to follow a political end by invading other countries.

Anyway, that is the pacifist's answer. Do not resist by engaging in war. Instead resist by other, more individual, means.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Orwell's comment has to be taken in the context of the times. In the 1930's many newspaper columnists (Orwell was a columnist) were promoting appeasement using pacifistic rhetoric alongside right-wing politics and anti-semitism, often in the same column.

It wasn't a polite exchange of theories- it was a full-on slanging match across papers and writers. Quakers and other true pacifists got caugt in his crossfire.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo
As for the "missing most of the underlying truth attached to the meaning of their acts," that's meaningless liberal arts garbage. Typical of political scientists.

Don't make us gut math funding and science grants you egg-head!

Now get back into the room and do the math dance, math-mokey!

[Ned]

If one cares about the outcome of a conflict, whether a or b wins, then being a pacifist a country you favor to win is being a coward and being a pacifist in a country you favor to lose is being a traitor.

If a pacifist has no opinion one which country should win, he is being consistent.

I think most pacifists I have encountered are in the traitor class.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm a big fan of George Orwell. But as others have mentioned he had a bit of a blind spot over the politics of his time in that he believed everyone had to take sides in the great ideological battles of the thirties and forties.

Its not a dissimilar mistake to what some people make today - it's the "you are either with us or against us" kind of thinking. This eventually led on to Orwell moving from being a left wing libertarian fighting for an anarchist militia in Spain in the thirties to becoming, rather ironically given his literary output, an informer for the security services, mainly MI5, in the forties.

Pacifists aren't traitors. As far back as WWI compromises were reached with such people so they could serve their country in non fighting roles such as medical services or economic production or clerical work. Only a tiny minority refused to do that.

Not everyone is cut out for fighting. In fact only a small minority of soldiers are frontline fighters - something like 10% in WWII, so there is a lot of scope for people to perform pacifist duties or opt out entirely and serve in another way.

[Patroklos]

It is 10% now, not sure what it was in WWII but greater than that.

Supporting the rear echilon is not pacifism. Just because you are not pulling the trigger, you are still an integral part in the machine that is responsible for as a whole for the end, violene waged against the enemy. And you know this. So people who think the cause is worth supporting, just as long as someone else takes the risk, are cowards. Now if you happen to end up in the rear or just have talents that put you there (as long as you didn't pull any strings) then you are fine. But is an all or nothing thing, you can't be a half way pacifist.

A true pacifist cannot be involved in any way shape or form. In the rear, in the factory, or in the farm or any capacity that he knows is actively supporting a war effort. In a modern society that pretty much means living Ted style in a shack hidden in the woods.

[Alexander's Horse]

Surprisingly perhaps but in WWII it was only about 10% - but it does depend on how you cut the numbers. The figure is higher if you include everyone at the front.

The solution to the "war machine" issue was not to put pacifists in uniformed roles or munitions factories. There were many other jobs they could do with a clear conscience. But also many still served in the frontline as medics, clerks, orderlies and the like.

[Patroklos]

Where did you get the number?

Then they are not pacifists. More like people who realize their duty but have their objections noted. And those people who the military says the need and actually want to contribute (assuming they didn't have any disqualifying factors, obviously WWII women are not cowards) as long as it isn't for anything dangerous? Those are cowards.

But it is not black and white. Just because you do not volunteer does not mean you are afraid or a traitor. Today for instance, the military does not want every able body man to demand front line service becaue they don't need that many. It is more for when you are called to duty and then refuse, or when you state clearly you will not serve even if they do.

Then there is religion. I not bieng a memeber of one of those groups can't understand why their God requires them to be wusses, but that is just me. Who am I to judge them on religious maters? These would be the true pacifists, and an instance where coward is not a correct label.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Where did you get the number?

Can't give you a source but I studied the subject as part of my history degree years ago.

Only about 10% of troops in WWII were in say rifle companies or tank crews etc.

Today the figure is even lower, around 5%.

[Ben Kenobi]

AH:

That's precisely the position of my church. They allow members to participate in non-combat services, likely medics, or something along those lines.

Patroklos:

These people would be the antithesis of your cowards, rather than running away from the war, they would instead choose to face the dangers, yet refuse to kill their fellow brothers and sisters. While there are certainly religious pacifists, is it only a religious idea that all men are brothers?

In the Christian sense, Ghandi had somewhat different justifications for his pacifism, it comes from the radical idea of loving your enemy, to do good to them rather than killing them. Another justification arises from the Sermon on the Mount where Christ instructs his followers that they are not to resist an evil person, that if he should strike them, they should turn the other cheek.

Again, it can be shown that the primitive church were staunch pacifists, preferring to endure persecution rather than responding in kind. It is only after the Emperor Constantine makes Christianity the official religion, does the church get away from this ideal.

One more point, Christians in this sense learrn to rely on God for their own security, I have heard many testimonies from Mennonite missionaries as to dangerous situations where they escaped unscathed, while many others would have gone missing.

[Patroklos]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

total active duty 2002 = 1,413,577 (5% = 70,678.85)

That number is redicuously small considering that anyone stationed on a Navy ship is frontline, all deployable personel of an infantry division, and all pilots and aircrews are as well. Though if you use what you said above, ie only infantry and tank crews proper them maybe.

I just read your rant up there East Street Trader, I think the flaws are self evident. I honeslty feel there is no need to even attempt to refute it, it does such a beautiful job itself. Beating the Nazis through civil disobiediance? That is just saving them the trouble of lining you up before they shoot you.

Anyway, that is the pacifist's answer. Do not resist by engaging in war. Instead resist by other, more individual, means.

Second definiton, "an attitude or policy of nonresistance." Pacifists DO NOT RESIT AT ALL. That means protests, sit inns, anything. Basically all they can do is talk.

[Patroklos]

Ben Kenobi, what is the primary purpose of non combatant forces. To help there frontline comrades KILL. That is like saying Hitler and his minions didn't want to get their own hands dirty, just run the paper trail (extreme example, but you all are going to the opposite). Absolve them of the overall responsibility of the entity they were a part of?

I do not doubt the bravery of these men, I am just saying they are not pacifists.

[Ramo]

This eventually led on to Orwell moving from being a left wing libertarian fighting for an anarchist militia in Spain in the thirties

It was actually a communist militia (POUM), but it was a left-wing commie militia (as opposed to the Stalinist PSUC) that fought along side the anarchists.

Don't make us gut math funding and science grants you egg-head!

Now get back into the room and do the math dance, math-mokey!

Sure,

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Pacifists are a breed of humans doomed for extinction.

Repeat it as often as you want. It won't make it true.

Anyways, what's wrong with extinction?

[KrazyHorse]

Patroklos and Ned have both shown themselves as complete nincompoops in this thread.

If the British refused to use force to enforce their sovereignty over India then the fact that most Indians wanted self-government would have assured that they lost sovereignty. Duh.

And Ned made the mistake of claiming that true pacifists need to be neutral as to the outcome of a war. If I want my friend to win a fistfight against a stranger but am unwilling to shoot anybody to make thm win then I'm not a coward.

That being said, I'm not a pacifist and believe strongly in the right to self-defense against tyranny and bullying.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Math majors, glorified service postions. I have lost what little respect I had for you before.

Math has little to do with the human condition

Well, Political science has little to do with any condition.

[Patroklos]

If the British refused to use force to enforce their sovereignty over India then the fact that most Indians wanted self-government would have assured that they lost sovereignty. Duh.

That would of course be exactly what I siad, READ the posts. Not responding to Gandhi in the way that did would have encouraged seperatists. And though the Brits might not have used force gains Gandhi in a scenario, there is no scenario where they British would not have used it against an armed uprising. Equals in India massive bloodshed.

All I said was that Gandhi, as much as he might have hoped the Brits wouldn't resort to violence, was smart enogh to know thy probobly would. He absorbed the brunt of it and turned what would have been myraid incidents of mindless violence into a few supremely symbolic acts agains him and his followers. He overted the wider war by manipulating violence. he esentially gave the Brits a no win situation. Attack him and look extremely bad and thus be forced into Gandhi's plan, or not and fight a full blown colonial war that they would lose.

And if you are going to sit there and watch your freind get his ass kicked, you don't have to shoot anyone just join in, I doubt you have any true freinds. Not participating because you don't want to get hurt may be pragmatic in a way, but it is bieng pragmatically cowardly. Unless you just don't want to help your friend, in which case you are just a bad person. But to really tell if your a pacifist, you have to ask yourself if you would fight back is someone was beating on you. A true Pacifist would turn the other cheek. A pacifist that is true to his guns and not cowardly would also not run away, but let them beat him to prove a point.

[KrazyHorse]

Huh? You've got the most ridiculous view of things ever. Why would the uprising have been armed?

If Gandhi refused to pay taxes and wasn't punished then nobody else would have payed taxes either. If he refused to obey British laws and wasn't punished then nobody else would obey British laws either. If nobody pays you taxes or obeys your laws then you are no longer in control. QED.

[Ben Kenobi]

To help there frontline comrades KILL. That is like saying Hitler and his minions didn't want to get their own hands dirty, just run the paper trail (extreme example, but you all are going to the opposite). Absolve them of the overall responsibility of the entity they were a part of?

The only response that can be given is that everyone in a nation at war contributes to the war effort, even the farmer who feeds the entire nation. By this definition, the only pacifists would be the ones willing to go to jail.

I agree that in one sense you sustain the war, but do not medics try to save lives regardless of the side they fight? Thus like Florence Nightengale, they have a higher duty to save lives.

[Patroklos]

The fact that the mission of medics is to save lives, all lives, does not detract from the fact that they are fundimental to the success of any military operation or organization (which you said). But you go find me a medic that will admitt that he in no way supports the mission of the military as a whole, that his contribution is not nessecary of vital, takes no responsibilities for the actions of the organization as a whole for which he is a voluntary member (ie killing) and that he takes no pride in the achievments of his comrades. Good luck.

If Gandhi refused to pay taxes and wasn't punished then nobody else would have payed taxes either. If he refused to obey British laws and wasn't punished then nobody else would obey British laws either. If nobody pays you taxes or obeys your laws then you are no longer in control. QED.

It is very easy to ignore one person not paying attention to authority. When 50 million try there will be an armed responce from that authority. It may not start that way but will escalate. Of course trying to convince so many people to follow such a retarded pseudo pacifist course is impossible. But what precident are you using? As it is the British responded violently when just ONE person acted as you suggest.

Gandhi is not the first one to advocate non violent means to effect government change, nor was he the last (though he did have his unique approach). However for every successful "Gandhi" figure several thouands in the past and present have been killed, tortured, exiled, mutilated, or converted. I would say their tract record for survival, let alone political success, is less than encouaging.

And after all their fuzzy talk, no matter what they intended, what is the trait that alows them to succed in their mission. The VIOLENCE of their oppressors. What is the means that most are defeated by? The VIOLENCE of their oppressors (and indifferance to their message sometimes). To maintain that these people do not understand the phenomena and how to expertly manipulate it to their needs is insane.

[Alexander's Horse]

All you are illustrating is that it is not a black and white issue. There are many different types of pacifist.

[Patroklos]

I have stated more than once it is not black and white, using those exact words. Why you all keep intentionally altering what I say I can't understand. I especially like when you repeat what I say, pretending it is your own arguement and somehow different from mine.

I disagree that there are many types of Pacifist. There is only one type of pacifist that very few are. However, there are many categories of people that display a limited set of similar traits. That is me just argueing over semantics. So yes...

There are many different types of pacifist.

[Alexander's Horse]

Right - There are many different types of pacifists. Not just your definition.