/lit/ - Literature

>>13981574
No because pacifism would Imply you wouldn't defend yourself.
So if an authority came and you are pacifists you would do nothing about it, and you'll become a slave. Self defense principle is needed in Anarchy.

>>13981675
>you'll become a slave
in what way? you can avoid work. indians liberated themselves from british rule with pacifism.

Democracy is the peak political system.

>>13981691
If they forced their authority on you and you wouldn't do anything about it in response I meant.

>>13981675
It's very clear that the instance on anarcho pacifism is to neither incite or respond lethaly to violence, but that if a madman came at you with a knife, you should be able to knock him out in the least violent way possible and destroy his weapon. Self-defense is paramount, agressivity, whoever, is not.

>>13981701
then sure, but pacifism can have a response. It usually does. It's not anarcho-complacencism

>>13981696

>>13981715
>Daddy dictator keep me safe

>>13981574
Nature establishes heirarchy. You may break it, but it will be reformed.

>>13981725
That's why anarchist systems work on the bases of transitority. It's not meant to be a permanent system, but rather, one who creates it's stability by it's ability to change.

>>13981574
Literally the most gayest political "ideology" on the face of this planet.

You'd have to be one exceptionally queer motherfucker, or just straight borderline-retarded (or both), to unironically call yourself a "anarchopacifist". Most Hillary Clinton voters probably higher levels of testosterone on average, in comparison to those literal limp-wristed homos.

>>13981747
Said the state's 1# bootlicker.

>>13981747
What's wrong with pacifism, anon?

>>13981764
the fact that it's gay as fuck

>>13981747
So, you are saying that the whole fields of ethics and morality are gay, anon?

That's pretty edgy. And gay.

>>13981769
What's gay about it?

>>13981777
>strawmanning this hard

faggot

>>13981783
It would be a strawman, if anarchopacifism was not the most ethical and moral way to live.

>>13981777
Yes And

>>13981802
Listen, kid. Your gay little turkish bath orgy of an ideology is never going to realized in any shape or form, nor would any of your anarchopacifier-sucking buddies have the sufficient amount of brainpower and/or testosterone to actualize such a revolution that would bring about such a radical change.

>>13981833
so you're saying it's actually a utopia? not achievable and isn't tainted by practicallity of other ideas. sounds pretty comfy my dude. As a individual politics it seems like a way to go

>>13981833
You are braindead if you think a "revolution" will actually happen without the recreation of dialetics themselves. No revolution will be a revolution if we just change the commanding forces. The cycle of power and opression continue, as it always has - the historical process reveals and confirms this. Institutions rise and fall. What a revolution proposes is naught more than another institution.

You are a fool, cozened by fools to emplace one more stone in the walls history. You may, if you choose, cast that stone away into night. Should you so cast it, you will die empty and alone, as do all, even the kings, the burgeoius and the revolutionaires. But you may live free, and you may die free. I don't expect you to undestand this.

>>13981696
Direct democracy can be ok, representative democracy is basically just mob rule fueled by clandestine elites.

>anarcho anything

>>13981691
>indians liberated themselves from british rule with pacifism.
Not really. There was a fair amount of violence going on as well and had been some pretty good uprisings in the past reminding the British of what could happen like the Rebellion of 1857 that ended company rule and brought the British in proper. Add on top of that the growing unrest and increased violence between Hindi and Muslim, and WWII, Britain had to get out, they were losing control and had other more pressing issues to deal with. The Indo-Pakistan war happened the second Britain gave them control of their lives, the area was a powder keg and Britain knew it and got out while they could.

>>13981870
have sex you fucking homo

>>13981890
shut up literal zero brain. gandhi succeeded in all his intentions.

>>13981903
I already have had lots of it, my friend. It was necessary for the worldview I have nowadays.

>>13981917
Fucking your entire collection of limited-edition fleshlight sleeves doesn't count.

>>13981933
It seems like the one more inclined to have fleshlights in this conversation is, unhapilly, you, meun freund.

>>13981949
>unhapilly

>>13981908
Haha. Learn your history. The war between Hindi and Muslim was coming, which is why it was decided to divide the country and make a Hindi state and a Muslim state. Unfortunately there was no clear cut Muslim or Hindi area and many families found themselves on the wrong side of the board after the lines where drawn. Many like to blame the war on Britain and the splitting of the country, just like they credit Gandhi for getting the Brits out of there, but war was coming no matter what, Britain held it off for a good while, but it was inevitable.

>>13981908
No he didn't, he seethed at the existence of Pakistan and died shortly after.

>>13981982
Finally a good Gadhi biography.

>>13981979
>>13981982
when he was alive there was peace. and they didn't succeed because others were not anarcho-pacifists. if they were, they wouldn't want war

>>13981982
He seethed about the splitting of India, not about Muslims or a Muslim nation, he wanted India to be whole and for Muslim and Hindi alike.

>>13981998
>when he was alive there was peace
War started in 47, he was killed in 48 and there was plenty of other violence during his lifetime, Learn your history,

>>13982022
>there was plenty of other violence during his lifetime
there's plenty of violence in all our lifetimes. No man has ever lived in a time where world was at peace.
he stopped a war with simply fasting. it continued after that but come on you fucking retard, one man says "I won't eat" and millions stop fighting at least for a while. you don't think that's power? you're a complete retard who sees world only as a numerical interpretation of your anus

>>13982070
>he stopped a war with simply fasting.
What war? With the British? They would have just walked away from India the second control was lost. Britain was very sick of war and was busy cleaning up the mess left by the blitz. The people of England would have killed every single politician and royal if they got sucked into another war. They had no money and were in massive debt, their military needed a complete overhaul, war with Britain was never going to happen. Really if Gandhi got his way and the country was not split, India would have gone into civil war, the split gave them a boarder to fight over and a side to retreat too, without that the war likely would have consumed the entire country.

Who are the essential anarchopacifist authors?

I've only read Tolstoy.

Peak human freedom is a fat shot of fucking dope

>>13981574
>has never accomplished anything, will never accomplish anything, and has built in mechanisms to ensure it is impossible to ever come about
yeah I'm thinking this is a based political ideology