To some these two words may seem contrary, some would go as far as to say that they should not be placed in the same sentence. This would, however, be a mistake on a fundamental level. We live in an era where state repression favors the opponent with the least threatening tactics. They have come to understand that social struggle is a constant, and will remain so indefinitely. So in this light they prefer to choose and promote the opponent which is least threatening. This often means those who condemn forceful acts. It happened in India with Gandhi and it is happening all over the world today. I bring Gandhi into this only to say that he is an American hero. In India it is a man named Bhagat Singh, a revolutionary who opposed the occupation by whatever means necessary. The British then sought out Gandhi and his followers to promote this less threatening form of resistance. The same is happening in America, the activist community has been fed a mantra of pacifism. It is self rewarding, perceived as being morally superior, and largely ineffective. With all of this said i am not advocating violence but rather effectiveness. One must ask: Have the tactics of the past few decades slowed the advance of industrial society? Have they saved more forests than were lost? Saved more species, lives, or livelihoods, than were extinguished? Activists need only ask themselves what is effective, not which moral category of action they want to engage in. If we can accept that each of us has a 'tool bag', in which there exists various tactics, each appropriate to a given circumstance, then maybe we will be inclined to use and explore some of the other tools we possess. For perhaps the tools we have been using are stripped and rusted, or simply not up to the task.
So how does all this relate back to loving and fighting? Well if one was to consider them as synonyms not words which antagonize each other, we may be able to tap into a new found power. I will pose the following question: can a person truly love another being if they are not willing to fight for its survival, its very life? If the forest activists claim that they love the trees but are not willing to risk or sacrifice anything more than a few dollars, do they love it? The same question can be posed on the side of fighting. Can one sustain a fight without love? Who will endure longer, the paid soldier, or the impassioned guerrilla? In military terms a quick and simple battle plan is favorable. We are not the military, a quick easy victory is not possible. This is to be a struggle that will outlast myself; and what keeps someone focused and motivated is love.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess I am confused by your arguments here. On the one hand you say that pacifism is ineffective, starting off with an argument of pragmatics. Then you go on to ask "who will endure longer" (itself a pragmatic statement disguising an extant value judgment- that endurance is elemental to values) "the paid soldier or the impassioned guerilla?" Having been a paid soldier, and also something of a pacifist, I have to say it's a toss-up; but that is beside the point. Now your argument is becoming emotive, with the values of emotion at the center where you were being pragmatic a moment before.
ReplyDeleteTo address your question: often the paid soldier will last longer than the impassioned guerilla. Many times the guerilla will even be quick to sacrifice his life, thus loosing the race for endurance. But then again, guerillas have outlasted some long military occupations: just look at Afghanistan. But to equate endurance with victory is a big mistake.
As to the ineffectiveness of pacifism, I simply point out the historic example of Jesus of Nazareth, who by all accounts was executed as a lowly jewish dissident by the Romans. (Low points for endurance, note.) And yet, Christianity has endured long beyond Christ, leaving for debate the values that it holds central to its identity; here we must admit that Christ was successful in his pacifism.
The reason many activists choose to think through the moral categoricals before first acting is that there is an immense power and certainty that comes from it. I believe anthropologically in the social power of a morality of nonviolence, which is well demonstrated throughout history. It is not self-rewarding, as you say, at least in the utterly objective sense of endurance. Any moral satisfaction that a nonviolent activist derives from his work is only the epistemological feedback mechanism which is the absence of a "categorical negative," i.e. the causing of pain to another.
And besides, nonviolent activism is not necessarily pacifism. It can be simply a strategy, not a morality.