|
13 Feb
4:03pm, 13 Feb 2024
49,372 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Hi. WARNING. This thread was spawned from a discussion in Politics thread. So those who find that to not be a place where they want to read or contribute might find this thread similarly provocative.
Someone quite rightly called me out on a post that I made and I said I'd try and explain a bit further. Going to try and take 5 mins to do so now. Happy for others to wade in to challenge, criticise, support, question, discuss as you wish.
Me: I don't think I'd have a problem with "my" country being overrun by a fascist, totalitarian aggressor by force of arms. I think I'd just leave if I could and if I couldn't I'd stay and do my best to live within it, while resisting the policies and actions. Resisting, not including killing people.
Other: Q for those who advocate 'total' pacifism: What would you do if you were walking down the street and saw a fight on the opposite side of the road?
And what happens if you know the police are a good 10-15mins away?
Me: As that's probably only referring to me on here, then sorry, haven't got time to answer. Will try and post something later. Be delighted to hear if there are any other advocates of de-escalation of military in order to promote peace. Or if it's only me.
But my wishy washy pacifism is probably for another thread.  G
Other2: Happy G, but that isn’t what you said initially. You said “I don't think I'd have a problem with "my" country being overrun by a fascist, totalitarian aggressor by force of arms”, which frankly seems a ridiculous thing to say. If I didn’t know better, it seems like a trolling statement. That sentence and wanting peace (which I think most on here ultimately want) do not correlate, in my opinion.
Other3: I think I'm broadly with you, but I'm not totally sure where I stand. I definitely don't agree that countries, when invaded, should not defend themselves. I don't think. Thinking....
Me: Sorry Other2, def not my intention to troll. Realise my view might be very different to others. Haven't got time to go into it just now. Might be complete bobbins, but it's my sort of naive "world view". Promise will try and come back and explain more later. But yes, allowing another country to overwhelm by force and not to fight back is part of it. Ignore me just now, I'll try and come back later.
So, this is later.
Here's my thinking: I'd rather that an aggressive foreign power overran the UK, through force of arms, and that I had to live in that country under their rule, or escape that country if I could, than I or anyone take up arms and kill people.
I think you could call my philosophy "total pacifism". Or stupidity. I haven't researched this, so don't know if this is a thing. My theory is if everyone acted this way, there would be no wars and no killing. Ultimate de-escalation.
Does this mean I would be a terrible protector of my family, my home and my community? Yes. I would argue verbally, would resist physically, put myself in harm's way for them. But if presented with a lethal weapon, gun, knife or anything else, I wouldn't kill to save them.
The main argument seems to be that there *must* be people able to defend the country or philosophy or even just make it really visceral and bring it down to community and even family, with arms. I disagree.
What do I think the benefit is? That eventually, if enough people could have this attitude, we would stop all wars. What is the worst that could happen? That those prepared to kill and murder and use force will always win. My answer? Possibly, but that's a pretty bleak view of human nature.
Final point that those far cleverer and more nuanced than me make is the "deterrent". Speak softly and carry a big stick (Roosevelt?) Well, I feel like the nuclear arms race and the fact that in 1962 the Cuban missile crisis arguably brought us close to global nuclear war is the argument against the enormous risk of that approach. I grew up in the 1970s and 80s as a kid with nuclear warnings an ever present and existential threat. Perhaps I am coloured by that.
So... am I in a minority of 1, a hopeless feckless character, so weak that I wouldn't lift a finger to save my friends, family and certainly not for "my country". Or not?
And as ever, please be nice to each other. You can say my theory is rubbish, but please don't just call me rude names. And certainly not each other.  G
|
|
13 Feb
4:49pm, 13 Feb 2024
66,633 posts
|
LindsD
Thank you for laying that out. I have no well-formed thoughts. I would always have described myself as a pacifist and would never sign up to 'defend my country'. I'm generally faintly embarrassed by it, tbh and try not to identify with it. Although even if I wasn't, I wouldn't sign up to bear arms. I lived in Germany when National Service was still a thing and had friends who did both community service and went to the army. I would not have gone to the army (though women didn't anyhow). I am totally against war.
However. I don't think I could do what you are advocating as freedom is very important to me. Not sure how I square that circle. And I do think I would kill for my family, but I don't know, and I hope never to have to find out.
|
|
13 Feb
4:49pm, 13 Feb 2024
66,634 posts
|
LindsD
PS and I would go in and break up a fight and have done.
|
|
13 Feb
4:50pm, 13 Feb 2024
66,635 posts
|
LindsD
And I wish we didn't have an army etc. and were just neutral. Lots of countries seem to get by OK being neutral and only having tiny defence forces.
*waits to be called naive*
|
|
13 Feb
4:59pm, 13 Feb 2024
16,479 posts
|
jda
if enough people could have this attitude, we would stop all wars.
Nope, all they would do is lose all wars.
The defining characteristic of a modern state is sometimes said to be the right to use/authorise violence.
Without people prepared to use violence, there is no state, no civilisation. Not an attractive vision of the world for me.
|
|
13 Feb
5:03pm, 13 Feb 2024
66,637 posts
|
LindsD
That's depressing. I'm not saying it isn't true, but it's depressing.
|
|
13 Feb
5:12pm, 13 Feb 2024
23,361 posts
|
3M
Hmm. I'm not sure where I stand, really. I think there's a point about standing up for the "right thing" which is a pretty fundamental Judaeo/Christian thing based on Justice and Compassion. I'll think a bit more...
In the mean time, there's a SF short story about a planet colonised from Earth which lives by passive resistance. The recurring theme was "Freedom - I won't". I had to do a bit of digging...
"It's one of the stories in The Great Explosion by Eric Frank Russell.
Extract from Wikipedia entry....
The final planet, K22g, has developed an unusual social system. The population call themselves Gands (after Gandhi) and practise a form of classless, philosophically anarchic libertarianism, based on passive resistance ("Freedom - I won't!" and "Myob!"); and a moneyless gift economy based on barter and favor-exchange, using "obs" (obligations). To perform a service for somebody "lays an ob" on them; they can then "kill the ob" by returning the favor. As the planet's population are demonstrably non-hostile, the officials have to approve shore leave, which brings the crew into contact with the anarchist natives. Many find reasons to stay on the planet, refusing to return to the ship. The officials have to get the ship back into space before they lose so many that the ship will never fly again."
The underlying point seems to be that if enough people are determined to only do that which is good for society as a whole, and resist the "command and control" then existing forms of society can't function in the same space and will fail when placed against it.
|
|
13 Feb
5:16pm, 13 Feb 2024
15,347 posts
|
Ultracat
I have no idea what I would actually do if I could choose to either be killed or defend myself by killing another person.
I really value my freedom and would do what I can to keep it if it was under threat.
|
|
13 Feb
5:18pm, 13 Feb 2024
49,374 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Thanks for joining the discussion folks.
Without people prepared to use violence, there is no state, no civilisation. Not an attractive vision of the world for me.
Jda, I wouldn't agree with that. You could argue no states (though depends what you mean by a state) but I don't think you could argue no civilisation. In fact, I would suggest that war and violence are the very antithesis of civilisation.
There are many forms of harmonious communities in which individuals and groups can live, which don't have to define themselves through violence.
So I would reject that one. As I say, happy to accept that any groups or states that define themselves in that way would be sitting ducks to an armed aggressor.
Linds, I respect your valuing of freedom, but would ask, how is killing someone better than enslaving someone, in terms of values or morals? Preventing enslavement by killing feels like no one has won to me.
I accept that none of my thinking works in terms of global, real politik. And if asked to justify it in that way, I would fail. But on individual moral grounds, I struggle with anything other than "killing someone, for any reason, is wrong". Somewhat simplistic, I accept. G
|
|
13 Feb
5:24pm, 13 Feb 2024
43,625 posts
|
SPR
You probably need to look into how most freedoms were won. Everything peaceful isn't how it happened.
|
