"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist"
George Orwell has to be one of the most often approvingly quoted person by both the right and left. He does seem, however, to be very clear on his thoughts about pacifism.
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. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. ... In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.I am not interested in pacifism as a ‘moral phenomenon’. If Mr Savage and others imagine that one can somehow ‘overcome’ the German army by lying on one’s back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen. ... Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force. But though not much interested in the ‘theory’ of pacifism, I am interested in the psychological processes by which pacifists who have started out with an alleged horror of violence end up with a marked tendency to be fascinated by the success and power of Nazism. Even pacifists who wouldn’t own to any such fascination are beginning to claim that a Nazi victory is desirable in itself. ..."
Do Orwell's comment's apply today to opposition to the current war against Islamic terrorism and to pacifism in general?
HT: Hot Air
Aaron, Orwell's opposition to pacifism, here, is an opposition to passive pacifism. That is, it's an opposition to doing nothing and expecting it to work. And I would say, yes, doing nothing in the face of horror is sort of "pro-facist". It's also "pro-democratic". It is, in fact, pro-whatever non-passive people are doing. And if you think pacifism is pro-fascist, I can only wonder what you think about violence.
Active pacifism, such as employed by Gandhi's Satyagraha movement, is a neither passive, nor violent. It is a peace which has power, in that it strips aggressors of the justifications they use to continue brutalizing their victims. It shows them their aggression as entirely self-directed, and the results as entirely their own doing.
Posted by: Stewart | 03 May 2007 at 06:48 AM
I didn't say anything about my opinion of pacifism. I honestly haven't completely formulated my thoughts on it. I guess at the moment I would be a personal, limited pacifist - ie my pacifism is confined to my personal self not a nation and it is not all-consuming as I believe some instances would require me to attack in a non-passive manner (to save the life of my family for example). I don't know who pacifist that is, but I am not a violent person nor do I enjoy seeing violence inflicted on others.
As to Orwell, he commented on Gandhi:
I'm not sure what to make of his thoughts, but I was sure it would illicit some thoughts and conversation.
Posted by: Aaron | 03 May 2007 at 07:38 AM
I don't know who pacifist that is...
Who, of course, should be how. I am neither a pacifist or a spelling champion.
Posted by: Aaron | 03 May 2007 at 07:40 AM
Seeker does this a lot, and it's unhelpful to conversation. This is your blog, and your posts largely represent your editorial opinion. To quote another, and then to later say "Yes, but that's not necessarily my opinion (but it might be)," is kind of irritating in its lack of committment to a position. If you aren't sure of your feelings about something, that's fine, but please just say so ahead of time. I'm not interested in having a conversation with George Orwell, because he is dead; all responses here are naturally directed towards towards you, under the (reasonable, I think) assumption that your posts reflect your own opinions. But I digress.
Gandhi was very useful to the British, and in fact that was one of his primary goals. To suggest that he wasn't successful is to suggest that he was trying to defeat the British, or to force them to do what he wanted, which is to entirely misunderstand the goals of the Indian independence movement. They were, ostensibly anyway, as interested in British well-being as in Indian, and that is the very basis for lasting peace.
Posted by: Stewart | 03 May 2007 at 07:59 AM
My posts reflect what I find is interesting, not automatically what I agree with. I found the quote interesting and thought it might be thought provoking for others. If I want to say how I agree with an article or quote, I do that. If I simply want to use something as a jumping off point for a conversation in the comments, I post it and usually end with a question - like the whole objective morality post.
Pacifism is interesting to me, possibly even ideal, but I don't find it practical. I guess my question would be, how do apply pacifism to terrorists that want to kill everyone and takeover everything?
This is where I wonder about Orwell's quote:
Would we not be under Nazi rule now if it was not for military force by the Allies? Would we not be under Islamic rule in the future if not for military force today?
Posted by: Aaron | 03 May 2007 at 08:28 AM
Almost certainly not. It's easy to imagine an alternate universe where Nazi stormtroopers encircle the globe, and we all live under their heel, but it's not really plausible. This "Nazi argument" against pacfism is as silly as it is common. Imperial powers of all types are almost entirely economic engines, and they require profitability in order to survive. It's difficult to imagine a case (there is no precedent for it) where an imperial power could maintain a profitable hegemony over a world-spanning empire for any signficant length of time. This is particularly true in cases where there is civil resistance (either violent or peaceful).
Whenever resistence to an occupation occurs, the occupation almost immediately becomes an expense, rather than a source of income, for the occupying power. The only motivation to keep such a resisting occupation intact, then, becomes pride or strategic reasons. There is nothing strategic about maintaining a global empire, and there is nothing profitable about maintaining a resistant occupation. The only way it works is if the occupied people accept the imperial control as being legitimate, which only happens if they are also benefitting from the arrangement (e.g. Puerto Rico, Guam, etc). Even in these cases, however, the massive bureaucratic weight required to support such an empire can also collapse the entire structure.
This is even more unlikely. At least Germany tried to establish a global empire. There has not been a serious attempt at Islamic expansion since the 1800s. The Ottoman empire, like any other large empire, could not maintain profitability over the large expanse of its control. It went bankrupt years before its dissolution, and was propped up by European support in an attempt to provide a buffer between Russian and the Middle East.
But let me take this moment to also offer another view of this: If there were a global (or semi-global) Islamic Empire, which controlled North America, you would still not live under Islamic rule. You would never have been born. And the people who were born in North America would not see themselves as living under "Islamic rule" any more than someone living in Egypt sees themselves living under it. They would be fundamentalist Muslims, and they would likely think it to be the most appropriate form of government.
Instead, North America is a largely Christian continent, and its governments are all democratic republics. Unsurprisingly, most people in these countries do not see themselves as living under "Christian, republican rule". It's only via the "What-If" game that we can imagine how we would feel if things were other than they are. But this is a nonsensical proposition.
Posted by: Stewart | 03 May 2007 at 10:31 AM
You want Gandhi's view on the Nazis? Here.
I am not a pacifist. I think evil and injustice must be opposed, with force if necessary. Thus, I am completely in support of fighting Islamic terrorism with all the means we can muster. I do, however, think we have to do so intelligently, something entirely lacking with our adventure in Iraq.
Posted by: Louis | 03 May 2007 at 11:23 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-schaefer042803.asp
Posted by: Louis | 03 May 2007 at 11:24 AM
I don't get this hotlink thing. I used the formula that Aaron provided and it doesn't work.
Posted by: Louis | 03 May 2007 at 11:29 AM
That article is just a weak attempt to justify the war in Iraq by comparing Saddam to Hitler, and then saying "Even Gandhi kind of agreed, but he was inconsistent so who cares what he thought?" Ok, I guess. I don't know that people in the U.S. really care what Gandhi thought, for the most part, apart from mouthing meaningless plattitudes towards him, in the form of some selected quotes.
Gandhi believed that non-violence (i.e. satyagraha) was preferable over violence, but that violence was preferable over inaction. Thus, he employed non-violence throughout his life, and achieved amazing results through it.. If you believe that violence is effective, then you will employ violence to achieve your goals. If you believe that it is ineffective, as I do, you will renounce it as a means to achieve your goals. What one man, no matter who he was, supposedly thought, is entirely unimportant when compared to what we think today. Peace is not dogmatic. It's not a principle. It's a practice. Those of us who consistently employ it do so, not because we feel that we're supposed to, but because we're convinced that it works better than the alternative.
Posted by: Stewart | 03 May 2007 at 12:04 PM
"Practicing peace" works until it doesn't work, then it's time to use other tactics. Sometimes violence works a whole lot better.
Posted by: Louis | 03 May 2007 at 01:41 PM
Louis:
< a href="website">text< /a >
Delete the space after the first and second < and then the space after the last a. The < should be touching the first "a" and the second < should be touching the / with the second "a" touching the >. I hope that helps.
Posted by: Aaron | 03 May 2007 at 02:16 PM
Hi Seeker
Orwell chose an unnecessarily contentious way to accuse pacifism of being an ineffective way to promote justice. The phrase "pro-fascist" carries the connotation of being in favor of fascism. Orwell wasn't claiming that though; Orwell was just claiming that if pacifism had carried the day the fascists would gain greater power.
I don't know Orwell's religious beliefs, but I would say that a religious person might come to a different estimate of the efficacy of pacifism. As a Christian, I believe that what we can see with our own eyes is only part of reality, that even if pacifism did lead to a fascist takeover of the world, pacifism might still be the appropriate position if participating in war is incompatible with Jesus' teaching to love our enemies. Paul wrote that God works everything for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28)--a Christian might have faith that God will work things out so that we can obey Christ's command even if it seems like loving our enemies will make things worse.
your friend
keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 03 May 2007 at 05:12 PM
If your goal is to hurt someone, then yes, violence works a whole lot better. In fact, it works 100% of the time. If you goal is to specifically hurt someone else, then violence works about half the time. Similarly, if your goal is to hurt yourself, violence has about a 50% success rate. If your goal is to avoid hurting someone, if your goal is to reduce pain and suffering, then you can certainly try violence, but history doesn't speak very highly of it's ability to get you there.
Louis, look at it this way: Violence only appears to work when we view aggressors and victims as being fundamentally separate. It only looks appealing when we see ourselves and others as being different. I would suppose that you, as a Buddhist, understand better than most people that this sort of thinking is basically nonsense. This innocent mistake, this ontological misunderstanding, is maybe the greatest source of human suffering in the world today.
When others harm us, when they disregard our feelings and desires, we instinctively write them off. We say that they deserve our punishment, that they had it coming, or should have known better. We use this thinking to justify harming them, to justify disregarding their feelings and desires, but the justification doesn't really exist. It's entirely in our minds.
Posted by: Stewart | 03 May 2007 at 05:42 PM
Tell that to the parents of the dead Virginia Tech students. If only one person in one of those classes carried a gun, he/she could have killed the evil that invaded their classrooms. Sometimes evil can only be stopped by violence.
Not everything is in our minds.
Posted by: Louis | 03 May 2007 at 06:15 PM
As you see I am only partly Buddhist. I think it is the best of the field, but it doesn't cover everything. My allegiance is to Truth and reality, not ideal systems.
Posted by: Louis | 03 May 2007 at 06:17 PM
The VT killings were violence. The shooter was obsessed with violence and revenge; he was consumed with frustration and aggression. Yet I hear countless people suggesting, bizarrely, that adding more violence on top of all that would have made this so much better. But think about that: instead of promoting empathy and compassion -- behavior that has real preventative value in these situations -- you are encouraging fear and suspicion. You're suggesting that it would be a good thing, perhaps, if students were so afraid of each other that they felt compelled to carry concealed handguns on them during university lectures. That makes no sense to me.
I really don't see how this is any different than the sort of nonsense that Seeker tosses about, as if it actually meant something. This kind of thinking entirely discounts the pain that the shooter felt, the anxiety and frustration that compelled him to murder his classmates. Maybe you believe that he would be worth helping if he had restrained himself? But I guess since he didn't, or couldn't, he's to be written off as "evil", whatever that's supposed to mean.
Posted by: Stewart | 03 May 2007 at 07:43 PM
Oh, dear! The poor homicidal psychopathic mass-murderer!
If I were in one of those classrooms, facing this monster wielding TWO guns, I wouldn't give a shit about his pain and frustration and anxiety. And I wouldn't give a flying fuck about bleeding heart boo-hooing about his pain. All I would wish for would be a weapon to kill him, saving myself and others. I would delight in adding more violence on his head.
The time to "help" him was long before he entered those classrooms. The system failed him and those students - and all of us when it failed to keep him locked up and control his access to handguns. As I said before, sometimes it's necessary to resort to violence in order to stop even greater evils. It's not the first choice, but it's definitely in play.
Posted by: Louis | 03 May 2007 at 08:23 PM
Hi Louis
You make the toughest case against pacifism. I have a couple of responses for what they are worth.
1. It is comforting to think that Seung-Hui Cho is a monster, but he is just a human being. It’s too late to help him, we cannot help him nor can we help his victims. But compassion and understanding from the right people might have caused him to go a different way, and showing compassion for the wierdos and outcasts now might prevent future Virginia Techs and Colombines and Heath High Schools from happening in the future.
2. Another student with a gun might have stopped Cho from his mass murder. On the other hand, I don’t know that we’d be overall safer if more people were armed and ready for action. I don’t like the idea of a bunch of wannabe heroes with guns just waiting for the chance to stop what they perceive as a clear and present danger. If a guy is sticking up a store I am in, think I’d rather play the odds and let the guy finish his business and get out instead being trapped in the cross-fire between the crook and the heroic citizen.
3. Any choice a person makes causes the entire universe to take a different path from the one it would otherwise take, and it is impossible to accurately predict the full consequences of any of our actions. The best you can do is guess. I recognize that not everyone is a Christian, but for those of us who are, we have been commanded by our Lord to love our enemies, to answer evil with good, to turn the other cheek. That’s not easy and I often fail, but I have no reason not to trust Christ on the matter of violence.
Your friend
Keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 06 May 2007 at 02:03 PM
I am not a pacifist. I think evil and injustice must be opposed, with force if necessary. Thus, I am completely in support of fighting Islamic terrorism with all the means we can muster. I do, however, think we have to do so intelligently, something entirely lacking with our adventure in Iraq.
I am in complete agreement with Louis on this.
While peaceful resistance has it's place in the arsenal (!) of weapons against the hatred and violence of men, it is not a solve-all solution. Some problems MUST be dealt with with radical, violent action.
I look at it kind of like the relationship between prevention, nutrition, and natural medicine on one hand, and surgery on the other. While the first group are often preferable, less "violent" and invasive, and often produce great results, sometimes, a disease is too pernicious, or too far advanced, and such "soft" methods will not work before the patient is dead.
In those cases, only "violent" intervention will stop the spread of the disease before it kills the patient.
Not only did we not have the preventative ideologies in place in order to keep Nazism from growing beyond a seedling movement, by the time we realized that the disease was strong and spreading, there was nothing we could do diplomatically, and the we had to use force.
So while pacifism and non-violent resistance are in some ways preferable, more noble, and their means in keeping with their peaceful desired ends, they are not strong enough on their own to stop a strong, serious, immediate threat. They may work when you have an imperial power who has colonized you as a form of enslavement, but when a murderous power has conquered you with the desire of destroying you, peace must give way to self-defense and violent ass-kicking. That's the price of freedom.
Posted by: seeker | 13 May 2007 at 04:29 PM
As you see I am only partly Buddhist. I think it is the best of the field, but it doesn't cover everything. My allegiance is to Truth and reality, not ideal systems.
I appreciate that sentiment. That is why I am mostly Christian, but partly Buddhist, not to mention a practitioner of yoga.
In fact, one of the reasons I returned to Christianity from Buddhism is that while Buddhism has some awesome principles, practices, and perspectives, it is somewhat lacking in the justice and public policy realm. This is where Christianity (and to a large extent, Judaism) shines due to it's well-developed ideas of restitution, truth, mercy, and justice.
While pacifists like to chant (religious pun intended) "violence only begets violence", this is actually NOT true when it comes to justice.
While it is true in general, and specifically when referring to vigilante justice (biblically condemned, turn the other cheek, etc.), scripture also retorts that if justice is not enforced (key root word there is 'force'), chaos will ensue.
This is how and why the bible can teach both personal tolerance (turn the other cheek, do not murder) while at the same time describe capital crimes and support civil justice and incarceration (not to mention penal servitude).
Posted by: seeker | 13 May 2007 at 04:38 PM
I really don't see how this is any different than the sort of nonsense that Seeker tosses about, as if it actually meant something. This kind of thinking entirely discounts the pain that the shooter felt, the anxiety and frustration that compelled him to murder his classmates.
There are a few reasons, Stewart, why I think you are mistaken. First, you are disagreeing with me rather than my arguments (ad hominem).
Second, the nature of most profound truths is that they appear in paradox (grace and truth, predestination and free will, justice and mercy, peace and strength of force). Many well-meaning but under-informed 'heretics' want to take one side of a truth paradox and declare that as the whole truth.
When you present the two sides of the coin to them, they get confused and often retreat into a childish, simplistic black-or-white argument (it must be this way or that), complaining that the paradoxical view is illogical, when really, it is just not simplistic, which they are demanding.
Third, while we must acknowledge the pain the shooter felt, and we must address that same social failing so that others are not pushed over the edge, this does not exempt them from responsibility for their actions, nor does it mean that such a person has not made a fatal mistake in surrendering themselves to evil - fatal in that they have *chosen* (and perhaps, were unable to choose otherwise) to oppose what is right and just, and justice must be enforced by force in order to protect the innocent and law-abiding.
Let's not make more victims by exempting those who have chosen wickedness and allowing them to go on rampages, because we somehow think that using force to protect those who, perhaps having equally hard lives, have chosen the path of virtue instead of hatred, is somehow going to produce more violence.
That position is flawed. There are times and situations for pacifism and mercy, but there are times when a person has so surrendered themselves to self-pity and evil that they have essentially become rabid. Rabid animals, unfortunately, must be put down in order to protect everyone. It is a sad fact of life.
Hitlers need to be brought to justice, and killed if necessary. Same with radical homicidal Muslims, or anyone else who has become a mortal danger to humanity.
Posted by: seeker | 13 May 2007 at 04:58 PM
Funny, I find christianity lacking in the justice department. I guess it's because I've been on the receiving end of their rank injustice for far too long to go along with their viewpoint. Justice for some in-group is no justice at all.
Posted by: Louis | 13 May 2007 at 09:26 PM
Funny, I find christianity lacking in the justice department
Well, there is certainly a gap between what it teaches and how the church and christians have practiced it. But from an ideological and practical perspective, I think xianity shines in the justice/mercy/truth/restoration department.
Posted by: seeker | 13 May 2007 at 10:09 PM
Yes, the Eleventh Commandment should read: "Do as I say, not as I do."
One can love truth, justice and mercy without believing in supernatural fairy tales.
Posted by: Louis | 14 May 2007 at 08:58 AM
Yes, the Eleventh Commandment should read: "Do as I say, not as I do."
An unfortunate, but very human trait. And one warned against by Jesus, Paul, and James, to name a few biblical authors. (I know Jesus wasn't actually an author, but you get it).
One can love truth, justice and mercy without believing in supernatural fairy tales.
Ahh, but can one KNOW truth without the Spirit of Truth, especially with the human tendency to be self-deceived and self-justifying?
And does history have anything to tell us about truth? How about archetype and myth? Joseph Campbell might disagree with your approach.
Posted by: seeker | 14 May 2007 at 09:07 AM