Stop using the word "pacifism"!!!

[IrateCitizen]

I have to wince every time I see someone in a thread debating the merits of the philosophy of "pacifism", that it will somehow save the world. Many of these same posters will often invoke Gandhi or King as evidence that pacifism works.

The funny thing is, I don't seem to recall either of these great men ever referring to this philosophy as "pacifism". Why? Because the very term "pacifism" is derived from the word "passive". It implies a philosophy of doing nothing.

The term that they almost always used to describe their philosophy was something quite different. That term was nonviolent noncooperation, or just simply "nonviolence" for short.

The difference between nonviolent noncooperation and pacifism is significant. There is nothing "passive" about nonviolent noncooperation. It is confrontational, it takes tremendous courage and discipline, and it has the potential for serious harm or even death, depending on the severity of the reaction to it. It is, in essence, the engaging in direct conflict -- just by other-than-violent means. Pacifism, OTOH, is the avoidance of conflict.

Pacifism is not a real-world philosophy. If you think that hoping that "we all get along" and avoiding conflict will make the world a better place, I wish you all the luck, but I will never join you. If, however, you believe that we should seek to find ways to resolve our grievances by other-than-violent means, but with the full realization that these means will still involve confrontation and conflict of different sorts, then I will be more than happy to join you in the fight.

Pacifism = weak, bad. Nonviolent noncooperation = strong, good.

I'd appreciate any thoughts that people have on this.

[RandomKoolzip]

1. Well, I'm going to remain passive on this subject.....

I'm kidding.

I never thought of it in those terms before; I'd been a proud "pacifist" since hearing "Give Peace a Chance" as a very little kid, but I think I'm going to have to agree that the times have changed and the word is becoming obsolete. In today's political climate, doing nothing is exactly what's quickening the death of the planet; actively resisting the encroaching empire using non-violent means is the way to go....

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

6. Non-violent resistance is what Gandhi and MLK preached

Pacifism is like ascethicism or finding "the middle-way" - the Tao of inaction, as it were

[RandomKoolzip]

9. And Passive Fist was a way better band name than Fistful of Ugly....

You gotta admit.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

11. I ALWAYS lobbied for Passive Fist!!!

Not so much for FFoU

[RandomKoolzip]

13. I live with many regrets, Mr. Strength.

Indeed, Passive Fist would have been far better. I'm big enough to admit that now.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

16. Are you this big?

[Dookus]

2. Not quite...

"Passive" comes from the latin "Passivus", meaning "subject to emotion", from the past participle of the word meaning "to suffer".

"Pacifism" is rooted in the latin word "Pax", meaning "Peace".

[stinkeefresh]

3. the Quakers are quite comfortable using the term "Pacifist"

but they were (and always have been) on the front lines of social progress movements. Many if not most of the underground railroad homes were Quaker, for example.

Pacifism may come from the root word, passive, but in modern usage it does not mean complete avoidence of conflict. I agree that your term is more accurate, but to dismiss the use of the Quaker's term is semantics.

here's a definition I just looked up at dictionary.com:

pac·i·fism n.
The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.

Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

[rogerashton]

4. While you make some good points,

"pacifism" is not derived from "passive" but from "peace" ("pacem") and refers to the opposition to war as a national policy under any circumstances whatever.

Some pacifists advocate nonviolent noncooperation as a substitute for war in self-defense and as a means of obtaining their objectives. Other pacifists advocate "passive resistance" (which I take to be something less than nonviolent noncooperation, though I could be wrong, depending on the meaning of "resistance." I think it means you never give up in your mind and will -- ?) Still others advocate nonresistance. I suppose your strictures on pacifism would apply to the latter two.

Conversely, some people who advocate nonviolent nonresistance as a means of democratic, libertarian and/or class struggle would not oppose war as a national policy under all possible circumstances, and so are not pacifist in any sense. I would endorse that view, I think.

[Warpy]

5. pacifism has nothing to do with passivity

The root is from the root for "peace."

Gandhi was NOT passive. He was an activist enganged in peaceful civil disobedience. Everybody knows that this succeeds best when oppressive forces resort to violence against the peaceful. Only then do people start to realize what they really are, and that is when they lose all support.

Pacifism is not a safe pursuit. Passivity is. Passivity means knuckling under authority without complaing. Pacifism means facing injury and death to disobey it.

[IrateCitizen]

12. Thanks for setting me straight on the root term...

But I still stick to my view that "pacifism" is a loaded term. It is too easily misconstrued to mean a lack of action, and is often equated with passivity.

OTOH, the terms "noncooperation" and "resistance" lend themselves to much more active connotations, given their historical contexts (a la Gandhi and King). I also find it interesting in the things that I've read from Gandhi and King, they used similar terms to describe their campaigns as opposed to the term "pacifism".

[library_max]

7. Who's talking about pacifism except the right?

I hear a lot of wingers accusing everyone who opposes the war in Iraq of being a pacifist. I'm sure pacifists do oppose the war, but a hell of a lot of us who oppose it are not pacifists. One can accept the premise that some things are worth fighting for and still believe that there was no good reason to invade Iraq.

To me, this is a strawman argument. I searched "pacifist," "pacifists," and "pacifism" on DU, and came up with exactly one thread other than this one. So I'm not sure that we have a widespread problem of too many people talking about pacifism, at least not on the left.

[corporatewhore]

8. has any one read a Pacifism as a Pathology

activist ward churchill of American Indian Movement?

[LeftHander]

10. Compassion and Loving Kindness

Compassion and loving kindness are active and have changed the world.

It takes effort and energy change the perception that violence is the answer.

Pacifism is just a word. Acts are what we need to change the world.

One act is to reach out to someone who is suffering and show them are love and kindness are stronger than fear.

The road to peace is paved with the truth.

We must first expose the lies, hold those responsible for those lies, then engage in compassionate dialog with those who deny the truth (Free Republic)

[IrateCitizen]

14. It is only possible to engage in compassionate dialogue...

... with those who are open to receiving this "truth" of which you speak. The Freepers, by and large, have no desire to receive this "truth". They would advocate for the outright extermination of people preaching "peace and compassion", if they were in a position to do so, don't fool yourself otherwise.

Such people cannot be met with "love and compassion". They must be resisted and denounced. They must be confronted, and exposed for the frauds, liars, haters and charlatans that they are. Such confrontation need not be violent, nor should it be, if the ultimate goal is nonviolence. But they still must be confronted, in order to be exposed as violators of this "truth". This is not hatred in any sense. It is very much in the spirit of the campaigns of Martin Luther King, Jr. against the hatred of segregation in the South. It is entirely possible to "love your enemy" while confronting and denouncing their hatred, bigotry and shortsightedness.

Some of them might just then come to realize the error of their ways. Others will not. But for those that refuse to acknowledge that there is no glory in violence, there can be no end to their confrontation. To relent is to invite their views to possibly gain a wider following by those who do not realize what poison they are.

[pacifictiger]

15. you should check your english language dictionary before

making misleading statements like that.
You are mistaking pacifist with passivist.
latin roots = pacificus meaning peaceful vs. passivus meaning subject to external influence.