Anarcho-Pacifist Texts

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
anon (not verified)
Anarcho-Pacifist Texts

Does anyone have any Anarcho-Pacifist texts to recommend? Everything seems to be in French which I can't read very well.

anon (not verified)
Like new ones? Have you read

Like new ones? Have you read all the Tolstoy already?
or just read “How nonviolence protects the state” and “The Failure of Nonviolence” and by refuting that you’ll come out with a stronger position.

but that’s all . i d e o l o g y . tho

anon (not verified)
I have read Tolstoy, but, I

I have read Tolstoy, but, I haven't read those texts actually. I should take a look at them as I do hear those arguments a lot. I feel like Gelderloos is just sloganeering in How Nonviolence Protects the State and so I might just read The Failure of Nonviolence which seems to be his actual theory. It'd be good to know what the other position is.

anon (not verified)
Eh, I'm too lazy to read this

Eh, I'm too lazy to read this. My rebuttal of what I glean to be Anarchist critiques of nonviolence would be that I think that a lot of Anarchists have sort of have a persecution complex concerning "pacification". The faux Pacifist Liberal campaign to disarm the Anarchist community by offering a nonviolent strategy is totally nonexistent. While concessions to the Liberal democratic project have been made by the Peace Movement, they are fairly limited. If anything, Empire incites violent revolt more than it pacifies it as the executors of violent acts can easily be demonized as terrorists. The regimen would prefer for there to be malefactors rather than have positive advocates of Anarchism. They seek, in some way or another, to debase every partiality associated within the Anarchist movement. This is a point of contention, but, I would argue that the usage of violence exceeds the conditions of survival in what can be referred to as the core. The execution of violent acts is always, therefore, demeaning. One should not respond to the "monopoly of violence" with an attempt to turn it in on itself. Such a racket is maintained by that it is capable of suppressing such attempts without losing face. Aside from the strategic critique I have to make of the usage of violence, I also think that it is unethical. I am of the opinion that the ends do not justify the means. The means become the ends.

That's admittedly a bit preachy. I'm trying to tone it down a bit. As much as my theory just doesn't neatly fit into a "diversity of tactics", I do try to respect other Anarchist positions. To each to their own autonomy.

anon (not verified)
I also hypotesize that given

I also hypotesize that given that the military has to defect to a civillian populace in a revolutionary situation and that, for, a revolution to occur, it must spontaneously arise from the multitude, that there is no reason to wage violent revolution under such favorable circumstances.

SirEinzige
Marginal violence and insurrection

There are actually strong points of agreement between you and I. If anything I would drop revolution completely as I don't think there is any revolution that does not have some built in instrumental violence. Social insurrection is what I would advocate where the violence is marginal and only manifested by released co-structural tensions.

anon (not verified)
I've been thinking about that

I've been thinking about that lately too a bit. The whole prospect of sending people out there to risk their lives for my desire for there to be some sort of reconfiguration of society seems a bit exploitative. I don't really know how I feel about inspiring hunger strikes. It seems like that people should wage nonviolent revolution is too much for me to ask of them.

Do you know of any good Anarchist critiques of revolution? Also, do you have anything on social insurrection?

I think that there are exceptions to be made concerning Pacifism in regards to self-defence. I see this in a very particular manner, though, and, there are very few. I kind of actually wish that I had the ethical resolve to just simply state that I am against violence in all cases, but, it just isn't there. It's possible that I could support that a commune maintains itself in self-defence, but, it would probably be fairly rare for this to pan out in the West. If you maintain a squat and arm yourself then you have just provided the justification for your squat being raided. I don't know that I would say that Rojava, for instance, violates too much in the way of Ethics by defending themselves against the Islamic State in spite of that I'm opposed to the Syrian Civil War. I guess I'm a bit wishy-washy when it really comes down to it. I tend to be somewhat partisan when it comes to what I do think is acceptable and what I don't think is when it comes to violence and don't really have a well defined Ethic with which to level axioms from. For instance, I see someone like Georg von Rauch as being somewhat tragic when I would be likely to be less sympathetic, more critical, and, more dismissive of actions undertaken by members of the RAF. My whole theory is fraught with irresolvable contradictions and vague sentiments. I guess I'm just sort of in a phase where I'm reconsidering everything.

anon (not verified)
there are many critiques of

there are many critiques of revolution from insurrectionist, post-left, nihilist, and anti-civ perspectives, which need not be mutually exclusive

some people read into wu wei stuff (idk about this) and come out of it chiller than pacifists and hippies combined

anon (not verified)
I was recommended Daoism and

I was recommended Daoism and/or Taoism by someone else and it does seem to be pretty interesting. While I would like to be chill, I'm kind of a spaz. Even though a goal is to be chill, the goal is not just to be chill, though.

I really like Jacques Camatte's On Organization which isn't a critique of revolution per se, but, I would be interested in similar critiques. I don't know that I agree with the Anti-Civilization line. I just think that it's too pessimistic. I have some prejudices against Nihilism which I am trying to rid myself of, but, ultimately feel like the school of thought is just misguided. There's nothing really wrong with it, I'm just not sure that it's really correct. I would prefer some sort of contemporary Existentialism. I'm not a post-Left Anarchist as I see the historical theory as more or less being centered around something like libertarian Socialism and don't necessarily see a need to abandon this project. I think that some of their critiques are pretty alright, though. It's the sort of thing where they bring up good points, but, I don't necessarily agree with them. I probably would be seeking the insurrectionist critique of revolution, though. While I generally agree with Anarchism without adjectives, my particular school of thought is of the far-Left and so I would be seeking critiques from that perspective if there are any. It seems like they are bound to be out there. Other critiques would be welcome, though. I'm fairly open to more or less the whole philosophy in spite of that I do have particular inclinations.

anon (not verified)
Libertad did a really sharp

Libertad did a really sharp distinction between libcom (or libsoc, same-same) and anarchy. One accepts that freedom can be achieved within the authoritarian world, while the latter recognizes that there is no freedom in this society and it is rather something to create through a tension. Libsoc is also another kind of edgier liberal leftism... but not too edgy in some cases, especially with that idealistic crowd that panders on the State and its communitarian/cooperative sector.

anon (not verified)
I could be of that crowd but

I could be of that crowd but I don't think that I pander to the State or to co-ops. I'm also fairly idealistic. I have no real fear of being called a "Liberal" I guess. I think that term is sort of internally like Orwell's "Fascism". At least online. It's probably just the case that there are more anti-social types who spend a lot of time online and not necessarily representative of the Anarchist community as a whole.

anon (not verified)
Also is "the West" better

Also is "the West" better than "the core"? I kind of don't think that it is, but, I also don't really think that I agree with the concepts of the "core" and the "periphery". The "West" is the best that I have thusly come up with, but, I kind of feel like it's just like saying the "Occident". I'm kind of suprised that there haven't been decent invented terms for this yet.

senileoldtroll (not verified)
the real problems with

the real problems with violence aren't based in moral/ethical objections to it, that only adds to the confusion imo

anon (not verified)
I guess I don't think that

I guess I don't think that morality and Ethics are synonymous and that distinctions are useful. I see Ethics as coming into being through the Other. Ethics exists because there are others. It's sort of a radical interpretation of the Social Contract which is partially influenced by Levinas. I haven't quite parcelled it out and that probably doesn't explain very much, but, I guess I think it is the case that the state of affairs is that Ethics do exist and that people shouldn't be opposed to this. I ought to have a clearer way of explaining this as I am suggesting that Ethics are relevant, but, I have a lot of theory to read before I can do that.

I guess I do think that there are both Ethical and strategic problems with violent revolution which is, in part, what makes my political philosophy Anarcho-Pacifism and not just simply libertarian Socialism or Anarchism.

This isn't terribly relevant to this, but, while I don't necessarily agree with Nietzsche, I do sort of incoroporate the Transvaluation of All Values into my philosophy. I have a fairly complex understanding of Nietzsche.

As much as it detracts from philosophies of faith, I do make a distinction between Ethics and Morality, and, do generally regard Morality as being somewhat negative. I should like not to be so critical of faith and spirituality, but,I, ultimately, just honestly am.

I'm guess what I'm trying to get at is that I don't agree for complex reasons which I am not doing a very good job of explaining because I haven't quite sorted them out myself yet.

senileoldtroll (not verified)
I haven't said anything … for

I haven't said anything … for you to disagree with yet except that I said both (ethics/morality) because the distinction doesn't matter here. It's an important distinction, don't get me wrong, but not in this case.

Here, it's just a distraction and I mention that because it might help with your "sorting out".

senileoldtroll (not verified)
Basically, the problem is the

Basically, the problem is the flawed starting premise.

"I think violence is morally/ethically objectionable!"

It gets countered with nuance about self defence, or rojava, or whatever and then you're left trying to prop it up on shaky ground.

I'd suggest abandoning the flawed starting premise. Most of the problems with violence aren't abstract imo, they're functional/practical: for example, most of the capacity for violence is entrenched in the hands of the worst sort of people who use it for their own gain.

Contrast this with how most of the people who oppose their agendas have almost no capacity to resist violence with violence of their own and instead, spend their time navel-gazing about moral/ethical abstractions or some other form of representation.

So violence itself isn't the issue, it's the concentration of the capacity for violence in the wrong hands, also known as POWER *cue dramatic music*

anon (not verified)
Sorry, double replies.

Sorry, double replies.

My Ethical considerations are fairly abstract, but, I do intend to make them practical. I don't think that Ethics is necessarily impractical.

I just honestly haven't done the research for my theories not to be somewhat vague or riddled with internal contradictions.

How does the problem of violence disappear with the capacity for it's use being in the "right" hands? The systemic violence of the State is sustained by its capacity for use. I don't know that I believe that in other hands that this would somehow be ideal. It could be better than things are now, but, would be far from ideal.

I'm of the opinion that an end goal of any revolutionary project should involve some form of disarmament. If there is no peace after the revolution than I do fail to see the point.

I'm trying to address what you're on about, but, I don't think that I did a very good job.

I guess I see the "monopoly on violence" as much as an obloquy as it is a statement of affairs. It is the case that what can be regarded as the State has a "monopoly on violence". I am not of the opinion that such a situation can be rectified through minor insurrections and the implementation of terror. I don't think that acts of violence via propaganda of the deed are likely to inspire revolution and that they will only be supported by a minority of commoners. At the height of their activity, the RAF had the support of 10% of the student population. That's a significant figure, but, no where near the kind of support that would needed to wage a revolution. The actions of the RAF and the RZ also provided for the justification for the militarization of the German police. Such actions did nothing to further revolution and more or less only resulted in setbacks. I don't think that attacks levelled from a more agreeable political standpoint are likely to be any different.

It is unethical for a political body to use violence in the form of a racket and things should be done to change this, but, I, ultimately, sort of agree with the cliche that "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."

anon (not verified)
the master’s tools themselves

the master’s tools themselves can be dismantled (i.e. technology) and the master can be discredited, ridiculed, evaded, and/or killed.

revolutions, famines, droughts, floods, hurricanes, wars, are more or less in the same ballpark category of events.

they are sporadic traumatic blips in what we experience as disaster-as-usual (business as usual for those in the business, and business is booming), but these events rarely define an abrupt discontinuity that define or mark the beginning of a completely new era.

on the other hand, civilizational collapses and extinction level events are more momentous. but no imaginable event can lead to a “happily ever after” scenario.

i agree that terror and propaganda by the deed are completely ineffective as means to usher an event defined as insurrection, or revolution. plus these events my not bring about the social change or outcomes desired by the insurgents or by the counterinsurgents.

what is is, what will happen will happen, do what you will.

anon (not verified)
I moreso meant that it is

I moreso meant that it is just the case that the State has a "monopoly on violence". It's the case that such a situation can not be rectified by violence from a 'pessimist' standpoint.

I feel like this conversation always goes like this. People always want to debate me because it's a fairly rare political philsophy.

(I don't know how to quote.)
"what is is, what will happen will happen, do what you will."
The same to you.

anon (not verified)
i see.

i see.

but notice i’m a different anon from the other two that were engaging you. i was agreeing with you from a different perspective. our disagreements are of a different kind than those with the other commenters, and have not yet been discussed, as well as my disagreements with them.

likewise i think that your philosophy could be internally coherent and perfectly logical, and i cannot discredit it and will not try to. but that does not imply that i live by it.
the same contradictions you mention as blemishes or things to overcome are all that i’m made up of. i lack consistency and rigor, and self-discipline and regimentation that’s beside the routine imposed by work/leisure

anon (not verified)
Yeah, I had actually failed

Yeah, I had actually failed to take that into account and so may have made some arguments that could have been off base in that regard.

Who needs self-discipline and regimentation, anyways?

anon (not verified)
Again, I don't agree, though.

Again, I don't agree, though. Does it just distract from the revolution? If Ethics are relevant, then, what takes precedence in so far that they could be considered to be a distraction? Why should revolutionary praxis take precedence over Ethics if they are relevant?

I am willing to solely debate violent revolution on strategic grounds, I guess, but, I do have Ethical qualms with it as well.

senileoldtroll (not verified)
A strange habit to be in,

A strange habit to be in, repeatedly stating that your position is "riddled with contradiction" but still insisting that you disagree with positions that don't seem to have that problem? Oh well.

Reminder, all I was trying to point out was a possible source of your own admitted confusion, not "debating you" because "[pacifism] is a rare position", which hasn't been my experience at all. Belligerent liberal pacifism does seem to be waning along with the influence of babyboomer activists who spray it everywhere but that's a different topic.

I also didn't bring any of this up to imply anything about "revolutionary praxis", which I have almost zero interest in, although watching a bunch of larping tankies discover the reality of violence can be good for a cheap laugh.

anon (not verified)
I honestly just haven't

I honestly just haven't hashed this out with myself. In some ways, all thought is strategic, but, it's not really a strategic maneuver is all that I meant. What is belligerent about Liberal Pacifism, really? Most Peace orgs that I know of are fairly mild mannered.

senileoldtroll (not verified)
So you've never encountered

So you've never encountered that tension? Where liberal pacifists throw other activists and militants under the bus (i.e. snitching and other collaboration with police) because they can't control them with pacifist ideology? Lucky you.

anon (not verified)
It does exist. I just don't

It does exist. I just don't really have it out for left-wing Liberals or see a reason to.

senileoldtroll (not verified)
I was just answering your

I was just answering your question: belligerent liberal pacifism looks like liberal activists and organizations collaborating with the state to prevent resistance movements from using more aggressive tactics that fall outside the limits of reformism.

anon (not verified)
oh, how i wish senileoldtroll

oh, how i wish senileoldtroll would use these aggressive tactics on me ; ) <3

senileoldtroll (not verified)
I'm not very aggressive in

I'm not very aggressive in general :P

anon (not verified)
To what degree such

To what degree such collaboration actually occurs is a cause for concern and to what degree it does not is not. I am discounting your claim that Peace activists and left-wing Liberals seriously hinder the Anarchist project through such collaboration if that is what you are trying to bait me into doing.

senileoldtroll (not verified)
This isn't my claim, it's

This isn't my claim, it's just objective fact. I think perhaps you're assuming I mean all pacifist liberals or something?

If you're a principled pacifist who doesn't collaborate with the state, then I have no criticism of that position. But I was defining my phrase "belligerent liberal pacifist", as in, a piece of the state's larger counter-insurgency strategy.

The large environmental ngos/nonprofits are especially active in this regard. I was under the impression this wasn't even a very controversial statement anymore? They've played a major role in preventing more serious resistance to the predations of the extraction industries and helped us get to where we are today, staring down the apocalypse. lol

anon (not verified)
That's a fair critique. I'm

That's a fair critique. I'm of the opinion that Empire tends to modulate revolt more than it conciliates it. 'Extreme' actions are almost encouraged. Pacification is part and parcel to the regulatory process, though. While I don't discount that such things happen, I would also suggest that some members of Earth First! might be somewhat fixated upon organizations like the Sierra Club. Who the appeal is made to is not necessarily the impediment to the futherance of a cause. I don't really mean to be so ostensibly critical, I've just been feeling sort of scuppered by the community as of late.

senileoldtroll (not verified)
Maybe so! Maybe so .. didn't

Maybe so! Maybe so .. didn't mean to add my shit to your pile. I'm just somebody who's experienced the worst of it, been personally betrayed and maligned, watched my friends get beat and/or catch charges because of it and then watched some of those same people who claimed to be our friends go on to become lawyers and politicians and so on and so on.

And it fills my little black heart up with the really bad feels, ya know? But enough about me.

anon (not verified)
i like the nuance and

i like the nuance and counterpoints you bring, as well as your levelheadedness. please stick around!

i’m usually part of senileoldtroll’s choir when he sings in my direction. but i’m an unruly choir! i don’t sing back the same song! >: (

; )

senileoldtroll (not verified)
I've tried to stop singing to

I've tried to stop singing to the choir when they already know the words

anon (not verified)
don’t worry, i still enjoy ur

don’t worry, i still enjoy ur renditions

anon (not verified)
If the strategy is for there

If the strategy is for there to be an insurrection and to use the weapons to defend the insurrection and the general concensus is against waging acts of terror, is the strategy just to arm the insurrection and then just sit on the weapons? I wouldn't disagree with that quite as much as I would other revolutionary strategies, but, I might still have greivances.

I also would like to find other Anarcho-Pacifist texts. I've read The Power of Nonviolence and The Conquest of Violence both of which are pretty good. I'd say that that's more or less the textbook introduction to Anarcho-Pacifism. I don't actually necessarily agree with Bart de Ligt's critiques of Pacifist concessions to the Second World War even though I appreciate his sentiment and resolve. I kind of wish that I did agree with them because I think that that would make it so I could join the War Resisters' International which I kind of want to do, but, ultimately, don't know what to do about that I don't agree with them. I'm an atheist, but, I'd also be willing to read some Christian Anarchist texts that are Anarcho-Pacifist. There's a real shortage of texts.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
D
3
3
G
B
1
Enter the code without spaces.