[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 80 KB, 700x393, pacifism-quotes-mlk_zps6084785e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4916178 No.4916178[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Pacifist/Anarchist Books?

I am a pacifist, which I believe in inherently anarchistic, and would like more literature exploring the pragmatism of non-violent action.

Literature exploring the ethics of violent action as a means to revolution is welcome as well. I just doubt I'll be convinced.

>> No.4916183

>>4916178
>I am a pacifist, which I believe in inherently anarchistic

how is it anarchistic?

>> No.4916185

>>4916183
The existence of the state relies on violence. If one rejects violence they necessarily reject the state. (And capitalism, racism, sexism, etc.)

>> No.4916190
File: 49 KB, 351x434, 1398984980351.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4916190

>>4916178
>I am a pacifist, which I believe in inherently anarchistic
The state relies on the pacifism of its subordinates

>> No.4916191

>>4916185
Why do you perceive Anarchy and pacifism to be mutually exclusive? If anything, it would be more violent.

>> No.4916192

>>4916185
>The existence of the state relies on violence

what does pacifism have to do with a state? it's a personal ideology

>> No.4916194

>>4916178
>ethics
Oh lord you sick idealist, read black flame and get back to me when you understand the nature of property, class and the state

>> No.4916197

>>4916185
that's what I never understood about anarchism: even if you reject violence, others won't. what's to stop them from imposing their will on you or others?

>> No.4916199

>>4916178
>>4916185

but a pacifist necessarily acquiesces and allows violence upon themselves and their loved ones.

So a pacifist would be indifferent to any state, no matter how violent it is.

>> No.4916203

>>4916197
Pacifism is fetishizing inaction. It turns incapacity into something noble and ethical.
>all my Nietzsche

>> No.4916206

>>4916199
No, they could be upset in their mind. They might even voice it. They just can't do anything about it.

>> No.4916209

>>4916206
>No, they could be upset in their mind. They might even voice it.

Voicing it is violence. It's psychological violence.

Pacifism only works if the person says "I shall..."

If he starts saying "You shall..."

He's already lost the point attacking others.

>> No.4916216

>>4916209
By that reasoning, knowledge of their very existence may be psychological violence and the only way to fit into this straightjacket ideology is disappearing from society

Though they must be careful that their absence goes unnoticed, wouldn't want to inflict psychological violence with some sort of statement through their action.

>> No.4916218

>>4916209
>Voicing it is violence. It's psychological violence.
Yeah,well cybering is psychological sex; still a far cry from the real deal.

>> No.4916229

>>4916190
No, it relies on the violence of itself. The state does not exist as some entity separate from the human. If we, who both form the are subjected by it, act non-violently the state will cease to exist.

>>4916191
I don't. I think that they are one and the same.

>>4916192
While pacifism can be practiced on the individual level, and that is a rejection of the state, it can also be practiced collectively. Even on a personal level when one practices pacifism they reject the base from which all hierarchy is formed.

>>4916197
>that's what I never understood about communism even if you reject capitalism others won't
>that's what I never understood about liberalism even if you reject aristocracy others won't
>etc.

>>4916199
If I practice non-violence then I am taking a stand against the state which relies on violence and in return violent reaction. Through the practice of non-violence I directly challenge the state with something that it does not know how to respond. The state will probably kill me, but if more people practice this non-violence the state cannot kill everyone.

>>4916203
So you would rather be subsumed by the state, by capitalism, and by patriarchy? Every moment you practice violence you are participating in all of these things and perpetuating them.

>>4916209
I agree, I think. When one prescribes they are attempting to subsume one's will and practice violent action against them.

>>4916216
I don't think so, I think you misunderstand. One does not prescribe by saying "I shall", one might use the phrase "Lead by example"

>> No.4916233

BTW the mods have made it clear that Pacifism is not to be discussed on /lit/. Please recommend books only, discussion will lead to the deletion of the thread.

>> No.4916234

>>4916229
If cops and the military are pacifists, then the state will cease to exist

>> No.4916235

>>4916209
What horseshit

>> No.4916237

>>4916234
I agree.

>> No.4916238

>>4916229
>While pacifism can be practiced on the individual level, and that is a rejection of the state, it can also be practiced collectively.

No that's just a bunch of individuals practicing pacifism. The moment those individuals form a community with rules or laws and directives they become a state and thus become violent.

>> No.4916242

>>4916235

Imposing your will on others is violence. Telling others how to behave (Thou shalt!) is the beginning of dispute and animosity.

The role of the state is to issue decrees and laws "THOU SHALT!"

There's no such thing as pacifist collective. The moment they start telling others how to behave they have contradicted their own position.

Do you know anything about human behavior?

>> No.4916243

I recommended it in the first thread, but in case you're someone different, The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy. It was hugely influential on both Ghandi and MLK Jr., not to mention it started an anarchist peasant movement in Russia.

>> No.4916245

>>4916237
Which you being a pacifist has no contingency upon. In fact, you being a pacifist is their goal. To equate defense with aggression is pretty laughable, but the idea that Right exists and prostrating yourself before it and serving it like its God, makes you an anarchist, is delightfully perverse.

>> No.4916248

>>4916242
>Imposing your will on others is violence.
No, it isn't. Violence refers specifically to physical force.

>The role of the state is to issue decrees and laws "THOU SHALT!"
No, the role of the state is to ENFORCE laws through PHYSICAL FORCE. Y'know, actual violence.

>> No.4916254

>>4916248
"Thou Shalt" is enforced through violence, no?

>>4916245
I don't equate defense with aggression. Violent defense is the purview of the state, and I intend to practice defense through rejection of the state and rejection of violence.

>>4916242
Does a collective necessitate "Thou Shalt"?

>>4916238
Why does a collective necessitate rules, laws, and directives?

>> No.4916255

>>4916229
>that's what I never understood about communism even if you reject capitalism others won't
>that's what I never understood about liberalism even if you reject aristocracy others won't

but capitalism and liberalism can both function in a state that enforces their tenets on its citizens and keeps the system in place; in other words, those ideologies allow the state to commit or threaten violence. if anarchism doesn't accept violence (and by extension the authority of the state), what mechanism will keep order in place and prevent violence from occurring, if not from a state, then from individuals or other form of collectives?

>> No.4916261

>>4916254
>"Thou Shalt" is enforced through violence, no?
The act of commanding is not itself violent, the physical force used in response to noncompliance is violence. The pacifist can do the former, but not the latter

>> No.4916263

>>4916255
I don't know. This is why I am asking for literature that explores this. I'm not sure that order needs to be kept in place, unless you are already being subjected by the state.

>>4916261
What is the practical value of "Thou Shalt" if not enforced through violence?

>> No.4916267

>>4916248
>No, it isn't. Violence refers specifically to physical force.

Words are physical so is psychology.
A threat is a form of violence and can cripple you more than any blow.

>No, the role of the state is to ENFORCE laws through PHYSICAL FORCE. Y'know, actual violence.

The state creates/establishes laws. These injunctions are already methods of control.

Pacifism is simply a standard you hold yourself to. Pacifism can't be a rule or law we setup for other people (it has no means of being enforced, and forming mobs and tell others how to behave is a form of violence even if its just verabl).

>> No.4916277

>>4916229
>I think you misunderstand...

Not at all.

What it comes down to is you want X to happen or stop happening, and want your opposition to concede X. Ahead of time you have declared yourself pacifist, that you will not use "violence". Very well.

But then you declare a thing called "psychological violence" which may be inflicted by your voicing your disapproval your opposition. Presumably this functions by affecting one's thoughts through your words, trying to force them in this way to concede X.

So you've stricken this as well.

However your mere opposition, just a refusal to concede your want of X even if you do not condemn whom you oppose, entails exactly what you might otherwise voice thereby inflicting the same "psychological violence". Thus you may not oppose either.

In fact the only way you may not affect one's thoughts in this "violent" and "forceful" manner is through 'disappearance', that is to be complacent in such a way that you are unnoticed and deliver no affect to their thoughts.

This entails the "indifference to any state" I presume you also posted about. Yet this expansion of the domain of violence does not allow the pacifist dissident to differ from any others who agree with and contribute to what the pacifist opposes. It is an unworkable tenant, to oppose this "psychological violence", as it leaves no other options and abolishes the very concept of a pacifist dissident.

Indeed, the very goal of a pacifist would be to inflict this "psychological violence" in lieu of "physical violence".

The only alternative, which you allude to with "leading by example", is allowing your actions to indirectly affect your opposition through direct affection of others who will then carry out their physical and/or psychological violence in your stead. But again, awareness of those results is merely an intent to inflict said violence with hands not your own. Even then this only works if you have somehow provided this example to the ignorance of those you oppose, so that they never know it was you who initiated the violence inflicted by others.

Your declaration and rejection of "psychological violence" along with "physical violence" is untenable.

>> No.4916280

>>4916178

The problem is non-violence can be a form of violence.

And the pacifist is most despicable when he would rather protect his own "virtue" instead of getting his hands dirty to do the right thing.

Also it's not very pragmatic against genocidal regimes that don't even view your group as human...i.e Genghis Khan, Hitler (he did nothing wrong though)

>> No.4916281

/lit/ should be a goddamn literature board, not my philosophy 101.

>> No.4916287

>>4916263
>I don't know. This is why I am asking for literature that explores this.

To be honest, most of the fiction that I've read that deals with utopian/pacifist communities tends to pick apart the flaws in such systems by exposing the competing/competitive impulses intrinsic to every (or nearly every) individual. While I don't remember many of such books off the top of my head, (except for The Blithesdale Romance by Nathaniel Hawthorne) I would try broadening your search from "anarchist" or "pacifist" literature to "utopian" literature if you haven't already, as that's a term that deals with many of the same issues you bring up, both negatively and positively.

>> No.4916298

>>4916281
Seconded

>> No.4916311

>>4916277
I'm not sure I agree with your definition of violence. I do not believe that influencing someone is necessarily an act of violence. I do not wish to give the impression that I am dogmatic in my pacifism. Thank you for your input, I probably won't have a good/better response tonight.

>>4916287
I'm not really looking for fiction here, but I do have an interest in utopian fiction. Thank you for the recommendation though.

>>4916281
>>4916298
I wish there was another place to discuss philosophy, but there isn't. I tried to focus discussion on literature that pertains to pacifism and anarchism.

>> No.4916317

>>4916298
Nowadays I tolerate trash fiction threads as long as there are less "hey /lit/ check out my philosophy" threads.

Both are absolutely worthless anyway but at least the former talks about something new

>> No.4916321

>>4916281
>>4916298
Just report OP and email moot and the admin some more.

OP has had his horse shit deleted twice.

>> No.4916337

Philosophy for dummy
Are you a nihilist?
1. Yes! Congratulation, you just figure out the world. Now go kill yourself.
2. No, I'm something else, I'm stoic/altruist/feminist/racist...! Okay, you are just lying to yourself and being an insane person, congratulation!

So you either choose the harsh truth or willfully lie to yourself, that's philosophy.

>> No.4916342

>>4916321
>>4916298
>>4916281
>shitposting is better

>> No.4916344

>>4916342
Hey man, at least my shitposting is short.

This thread is basically longshitposting.

>> No.4916356

>>4916344
Why don't you shitpost in one of the "philosophy threads"?

>>4916050
>>4916217
>>4912897
>>4915231
>>4915119

>> No.4916360

>>4916356
Because there's only one me and I can't do everything, nor do I want to bump them.

>> No.4916365

>>4916360
I just don't understand why the anarchist threads have been targeted by shitposting while any number of "philosophy" threads are allowed a free pass. (Especially when these threads have had actual constructive discussion and others are mostly shitflinging and muh may mays)

>> No.4916366

>>4916178
>I am an x
why?

>> No.4916370

>>4916365
Anarchy is chaos, chaos is shitposting.

And fuck no, any philosophy is shitposting more or less, sometimes with a lot more circlejerk than others because discussing philosophy is a bigger waste of time than any activity on Earth.

The faster you grow out of philosophy, the better.

>> No.4916375

>>4916311
>I'm not sure I agree with your definition of violence
I wouldn't say that my post is how I'd define like violence either, but that's what I derived from throwing "psychological violence" into the mix.

>I do not believe that influencing someone is necessarily an act of violence
"Influencing someone" is not an act, it is a goal. That is what physical violence is generally after (except for its own sake), so it is with psychological violence and any other method of coercion you may present.

My objection is that between a rejection of psychological and physical violence one is left no other methods of coercion to "influence someone" with. If the concept of violence is extended beyond just physical acts, there is no method for a pacifist to affect others or effect change that is not violent and thereby the pacifist is condemned to collusion with those he or she opposes.

Furthermore, a strict vow to abstain from violence of this sort entails collusion and agreement with contradictory views so long as there are more than one; such a vow requires abstinence from society altogether.

But in all fairness, I am just a guy spouting off on 4chan and arguably there may be another route besides physical or psychological violence to enact influence on others. What that might be I can't say, but I am glad to have given you some input and hope it spurs your thoughts on the matter.

>> No.4916396

>>4916366
I don't know. I feel a strong affinity for it, and it makes the most sense for me. I wish I had a greater explanation for you.

>>4916370
>anarchy is chaos
Truly you king of shitposters.

>>4916375
>"Influencing someone" is not an act, it is a goal
I don't really agree. While I believe influence can be a goal, I think one can also influence others actively to pursue another goal.

I do think I will back away from the idea of "psychological violence", it was not introduced by me and having never considered it before I might have grabbed hold too quickly. If all coercion is violent, then why delineate violent coercion?

I'm going to head to bed now, but thanks again.

>> No.4916399

>>4916396
Anarchy is the lack of order imposing on you.

It's chaos breh

>> No.4916401

>>4916399
Anarchy is the lack of imposed order. Not the lack of order.

>> No.4916404

>>4916401
Then we have to guestimate if order can exist if there is no one imposing any kind of order.

>> No.4916405

>>4916404
Whether it can or cannot, Anarchy is not chaos.

>> No.4916408

>>4916254
>Violent defense is the purview of the state
Violent defense predates states by a significant margin

>> No.4916411

>>4916408
Prove it.

>> No.4916419

>>4916411
It can has been observed in animals and pre-state tribes.

>> No.4916420

>>4916405
If it can, then Anarchy is not chaos.

If it cannot, Anarchy is a pipedream.

>> No.4916426

>>4916178
>Literature exploring the ethics of violent action as a means to revolution is welcome as well.
Congrats, yr a nascent syndicalist nihilist, watch the Big Lebowski and read George's Sorel, On Violence

>> No.4916428

>>4916426
OP should just read Stirner. Good bit on the distinction between revolution, which is to replace a state with a new one, and insurrection.

>> No.4916434

>>4916419
Violence cannot be committed by animals or against animals. I was under the impression that there have never been humans without the state.

>>4916426
I would describe myself as a syndicalist, practically, but a pacifist ideologically. I guess I am also nihilist but that might be more because of depression.

>>4916428
Thanks, I've seen him around here a lot, I'll check it out for sure now.

>> No.4916441

>>4916434
Humans cannot exist together without some type of rules. Who will enforce these rules? Who will issue these rules? By what force or power will they then protect themselves from outsiders or from dissent within?

>> No.4916447

>>4916441
>Who will enforce these rules? Who will issue these rules? By what force or power will they then protect themselves from outsiders or from dissent within?

They will agree on rules together, they will enforce rules together or otherwise oust whoever breaks the rules, and they will accept dissent and use it as an occasion to either change the rules, or schism. It's a union of egoists.

>> No.4916472

>>4916434
You seem to be using "violence" and "state" in terminological fashion. Which thinker are you referencing with these uses?

>> No.4916475

>>4916178
Pacifism is about as viable as Communism

>> No.4916488

>>4916447
Stirner please go, we're talking realworld

>> No.4916491

>>4916396
>and it makes the most sense for me
in what sense (I apologize) do you mean this?
I might go through the process of applying a philosophy to certain situations etc. or looking at arguments for it "oh that argument doesn't seem to have any holes", but in this case it's empty. You say "it makes the most sense" but you can't even make any sense of it!

anyway, this sounds romantic
please be more self critical

>> No.4916497

>>4916434
>I was under the impression that there have never been humans without the state.
Hahahaha. Read some Pierre Clastres (there are probably people who have done the same thing only better, but I don't know the names).

>> No.4916520

>>4916178
haha no

what are you going to do about it??
probably nothing

>> No.4916533

With non violence, you'd enable someone to beat the shite out of you. Even then, with pacifism you'd have to rely on someone else to defend you from said attackers. Being violent doesn't lead to Government and even then, being non violent further enables the government. Git out.

>> No.4916545

>>4916533
Pacifism solves everything nothing in a sense because you stop being a participant.

>> No.4916552

>>4916178
>pacifisme
>anarchistic

u woh m8. You ever delved into prehistory societies?

>> No.4916553

>>4916533
> with pacifism you'd have to rely on someone else to defend you from said attackers.

to quote Orwell's amazing essays:
>Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.

>> No.4916565

>>4916337

Killing yourself is lying to yourself in the same way adopting a point of view is

>> No.4916576

>>4916185
This goes to everyone in here:

GET LAID.

>> No.4916586

>>4916576
YOLO guys XD

>> No.4916598

>>4916586
My dick has been sucked 6 times since Saturday.

>> No.4916634

>>4916598
dude stop sucking your own dick its bad for your back

>> No.4916643

>>4916178
Here you go OP a online article that is well referenced and contains a very persuasive argument on the relationship between pacifism and anarchism.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

Pacifism by itself as strategy and code of ethics is antithetical to the attainment anarchism and I hate to say this because the words has been abused so thoroughly by an ideology of privilege and delusion.

>> No.4916646

>>4916243
If that was the case then why were anarchists in Russia so monumentally violent compared to other anarchist?

>> No.4916716

>>4916646
>If that was the case then why were anarchists in Russia so monumentally violent compared to other anarchist?
Might want to look into the history of anarchism if this is your opinion on self defence.

>> No.4916723

>>4916646
a) there were different kinds of anarchists in Russia
b) there were different kinds of anarchists elsewhere

>> No.4916729

>>4916716
Whilst you could definite consider it self defense in that context that is not the issue here the issue is self-defense of Tolstoy and the pacifist anarchists which is what the poster was referring to.

Show me a passage of Tolstoy supporting propaganda of the deed or assassination of abusive officials.

The poster greatly overstates his importance

>> No.4916734

>>4916723
If Tolstoy was as influential as claimed why were his teachings and methods not more prevalent?

>> No.4916745

>>4916734
He allegedly triggered 'a peasant movement'. Now I don't know whether this is true, but it doesn't imply that this was the only, or the biggest anarchist peasant movement.

>> No.4916754

>>4916745
Ah silly me you are correct I thought that hugely influential was attached to the latter part as well.

>> No.4916765

>>4916754
First I thought you were mocking me, but now I don't. That said, it's entirely possible that 'started an anarchist peasant movement' is an overstatement of Tolstoy's impact, I don't actually know. Also I'm not sure which anarchists in Russia were monumentally violent. I cannot tell how bad exactly Makhno was because there seems to exist mostly Platformist hagiography and Mennonite horror stories about what happened there, and I trust neither side very much.

>> No.4916766

>>4916178
I didn't read the rest of the thread but as a fellow anarchist, I'll suggest you read "How Nonviolence Protects the State" by Peter Gelderloos

Anarchism is not inherently pascifist or vice versa. In fact, if you look at the state's penchant for violence you'd have to conclude that violence will be necessasary at some point if we ever want to get out from under their thumb.

>> No.4916773

>>4916420
There are a couple examples of anarchist societies/federations that were doing pretty well for themselves until imperialists destroyed them.

That's evidence that it COULD work under the right conditions. Whether or not those conditions are realistic (definitely are not in the short term) is kind of besides the point. I've recently fallen into the "anarchism is a tactic/process" school of thought. We may never reach our end goal but every blow to the state, industrialized sexism/racism/classicism/whatever and every victory for oppressed people of all types DOES matter. It DOES make a difference.

>> No.4916774

>>4916766
Look at what happened to the Zapistas and the iroquois federation. We'll have to defend ourselves and our society at some point.

>> No.4916790

>>4916765
Some of the early socialist revolutionaries were and there were some short lived groups that popped up from time to time like Narodnaya Volya. What really distinguished them in my eyes was the fact they were the only ones to employee (and successfully as well) a decent amount of organization. Anarchist violence in the west was notable for its lone wolves rather than conspiracy groups who pulled of complex and plans like the winter palace bombing.

As for Makhno you hit the nail on the head there when it comes to sources. The best I can say about him is that the free territory under his influence was extremely democratic for a country under war time conditions.

>> No.4916792

>>4916723
What do you get when you put two anarchists in a closet?

Three splinter groups!

>> No.4916796

>>4916773
>I've recently fallen into the "anarchism is a tactic/process" school of thought. We may never reach our end goal but every blow to the state, industrialized sexism/racism/classicism/whatever and every victory for oppressed people of all types DOES matter. It DOES make a difference.

Not trying to be an asshole here, but:

a) if you accept that the State is staying, what distinguishes you from a reformist / liberal democrat / general Leftist?

b) How can you tell whether a slight decrease in oppression is a victory for the oppressed, or just more firmly entrenches the system by letting just a bit of pressure escape?

>> No.4916808

>>4916796
No worries about being an asshole. Discussion is good. Makes us defend and challenge out opinions and leads to growth. Also, I'm no expert. I describe myself as an anarchist because it is what seems to be in alignment with my views at the moment. But as I read and live and grow and learn, and talk to nice chaps like you on the Internet... I will change.

But one thing that won't change for me is my view of human rights. That won't change. Anarchism is just what I've found best aligns with my stance on the matter.

Anyway,

A) It don't exactly mean I expect the state is staying forever. But it certainly cannot be gotten rid of overnight. If the state collapsed tomorrow...

1. We'd immedeately be invaded and conquered by another state

2. If somehow ALL states collapsed, and there was not a state to "invade", there would be ungodly amounts of human suffering. Every social program in the world collapsing at once would be a fucking nightmare. In that sense, I'm no revolutionary.

But, I think we need to be working toward a place where we COULD live without the state. It needs to be disassembled piece by piece and the essential pieces replaced from the bottom up.

B) I guess I would need a specific example. But it's been pretty clear in the past, IMO. If the state is legislating something that seems to be in the interest of the people, it is usually a smokescreen while they get something awful through the legislative process as well... Sometimes on the same bill!

I don't feel like I really answered that 2nd question. The way it was worded kind of threw me off.

>> No.4916816

>>4916808
Thanks for the reply, unfortunately I cannot really reply adequately right now because I don't have time, but Gustav Landauer might interest you, he was all about creating the new in the shell of the old.

>> No.4916831

>>4916816
No problem. Nice talking to you.

And I'll most definitely take a look into Gustav Landauer. Thanks!

>> No.4918068

>>4916399
>>4916401
>>4916370


Anarchy as a political philosophy is the absence of hierarchy. No hierarchy =/= chaos (not necessarily at least).

Sure, the popular use of the word is interchangeable with chaos, but we're talking about the political philosophy.

>> No.4918072

>>4916552
Anarchy doesn't imply a return to primitive friend