globefront
02-07-2011, 09:35 AM
What is most unique among the varying ideologies was what is offered in Anarcho-Pacifism. In this type, you cannot preach the true righteousness of an Anarchist society - as opposed to the inherent violence and immorality of the state - unless you are non-violent and peaceful in nature. Further, the violence perpetrated by the anti-government protestors in Egypt would be directly opposed by those who support the ideas of peaceful resistance at all costs, rather than stopping the state at all costs (including violent overthrow and demonstration). To a pacifist who also believes that government is illegitimate by its very nature because of its “lawful” coercion of others to follow its own ideology; anarcho-pacifism would consequently not support coercion of any kind – even on their part for their ends. This is where the other schools of anti-government philosophy isolate their own outcast in the pacifist of the group.
But as always, the role of violence and beating back the corrupt state has always been a turning point for Anarchist philosophy. Is violence (a form of coercion) acceptable under the circumstance of resisting the state which they see as one of the ultimate evils perpetrated on society?
If true anarchism is total opposition to force and coercion that the state commands over society than wouldn’t engage in these same acts be a violation of what anarchism is trying to achieve? In order to stop of the proliferation of the state into our lives, is violence and force necessary to achieve it? Since according to most all anarchists, government is inherently coercive; than Anarchy and Pacifism must go hand-in-hand in order to separate itself from the immorality of the state.
Once we get passed the idea that true anarchism is pacifistic resistance against the organized violence that is inevitable of all governing systems, than we must bring into play the most played out debate of all: the Ends and the Means. In the special case of a peaceful anarchy philosophy, the means are the ends and the ends are the means. The means act as an expression of the values an anarchist group wishes upon society, but also does not force another into. Their ends are, consequently, a society in which no system of power forces its values or agendas on others as well. By supporting this structure, anarcho-pacifists are simultaneously fulfilling their ends by continuing their means of non-violence and non-coercion.
Perhaps it requires a deeper look. Most of all, when one finally realizes that not all Anarchy can or should be labeled as bad, violent or destructive to morality and society; we can begin to comprehend how a truly consistent anarchist must always be a consistent pacifist if they wish to bring Real change…
But as always, the role of violence and beating back the corrupt state has always been a turning point for Anarchist philosophy. Is violence (a form of coercion) acceptable under the circumstance of resisting the state which they see as one of the ultimate evils perpetrated on society?
If true anarchism is total opposition to force and coercion that the state commands over society than wouldn’t engage in these same acts be a violation of what anarchism is trying to achieve? In order to stop of the proliferation of the state into our lives, is violence and force necessary to achieve it? Since according to most all anarchists, government is inherently coercive; than Anarchy and Pacifism must go hand-in-hand in order to separate itself from the immorality of the state.
Once we get passed the idea that true anarchism is pacifistic resistance against the organized violence that is inevitable of all governing systems, than we must bring into play the most played out debate of all: the Ends and the Means. In the special case of a peaceful anarchy philosophy, the means are the ends and the ends are the means. The means act as an expression of the values an anarchist group wishes upon society, but also does not force another into. Their ends are, consequently, a society in which no system of power forces its values or agendas on others as well. By supporting this structure, anarcho-pacifists are simultaneously fulfilling their ends by continuing their means of non-violence and non-coercion.
Perhaps it requires a deeper look. Most of all, when one finally realizes that not all Anarchy can or should be labeled as bad, violent or destructive to morality and society; we can begin to comprehend how a truly consistent anarchist must always be a consistent pacifist if they wish to bring Real change…