I'm almost tempted

[African_Prince]

to become a pacifist. Pacifism has it's flaws but think about it, if all anarchists were pacifists, we could eradicate the idea that anarchism is about violence, chaos and single-minded egoism. It's important to me that people understand that anarchism is a moral philosophy, not just another abstract, intellectual theory. Anarchism (correct me if you feel otherwise) is based on the idea that all humans are equal and for this reason, all human relationships should be egalitarian rather than hierarchical. How can anyone really dispute this as the ethically appropriate position to take?

While I couldn't sit back and watch other people be beaten or physically harmed if employing violence against their aggressors is what it would take to help them, I do think that all consistent pacifists are anarchists since the state's authority is dependent on physical coercion/violence.

[coup-detat]

You make a very valid point. I'm a pacifist, not a passivist. I think every human has the obligation to defend themselves. This is also how I justify revolution. Revolution comes about when the state is constricting the people. It is the people lashing back at the state.

[Saturnine]

I myself am a Pacifist, whom still agrees that self-defense is important.

But I still don't agree on a revolution, I still prefer the idea of gradual evolution. Revolutions depends upon luck, Evolution takes much, much, much longer, but is more likely to take effect.

[shinyyy]

I myself am a Pacifist, whom still agrees that self-defense is important.

But I still don't agree on a revolution, I still prefer the idea of gradual evolution. Revolutions depends upon luck, Evolution takes much, much, much longer, but is more likely to take effect.

To be honest, I don't consider the two mutually exclusive(revolution and evolution). In fact, they require one another.
Evolution will, in my opinion, continue until the conditions are there for a mass-revolution. Government isn't going to sit idly back and watch itself become irrelevant.

[jack]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

SERIOUSLY I AM GOING TO GO COLUMBINE ON THIS MOTHERFUCKING THREAD.

Alright pacifags, using your shit "strategy" that has never worked (inb4 India, because I can prove it wrong and you know that, so lets not waste the time), how are you to:

A) Abolish the state. The state rests on violence to maintain its power and privilege and it has only ever been overthrown by using violence.

B) Repress the bourgeoisie. Anarchism is a working class idea, meant to empower the working class by removing those that oppress them. The bourgeoisie won't go down without a fight.

C) Seize property. The redistrobution of wealth requires the aquisiton of property. If a bourgeois does not wish to submit his property, he will defend it using violence. Capitalist property would not be able to be abolished because the capitalist class will defend it with violence, and using violence to counter that wouldn't be pacifist.

D) Defend the revolution. Reactionaries aren't going to go away if you stop paying taxes. If racists, fascists, capitalists, soldiers and other enemies of anarchism organize, they can quickly establish a new state, and you wouldn't be able to stop them because it wouldn't be pacifist.

E) Reorganize the economy. This goes with seizing the property of the bourgeoisie. How is a libertarian communist economy supposed to be implemented without seizing property from those who don't wish to have it taken? Think capitalists and right wing hicks.

[coup-detat]

SERIOUSLY I AM GOING TO GO COLUMBINE ON THIS MOTHERFUCKING THREAD.

This alone makes me support you, though you do make some interesting points. I guess I'm going a little far to even call myself a pacifist. The bourgeoisie has been raping us for so long that violence in my eyes is justified as retribution and vindication. When you infringe upon the rights of others, your rights are revoked, so I see no problem kicking in the skull of a pig.

[thelastindividual]

When you infringe upon the rights of others, your rights are revoked

That's exactly the argument ancaps use to justify shooting five year olds etc who accidently wonder onto their property (I'm not attacking revolution or violence etc I'm just questioning your reasoning)

[coup-detat]

Okay, when you commit violent acts upon others or enslave them, you revoke your rights. Use a little bit of logic, don't overly generalize. Is that a bit better?

[Saturnine]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

SERIOUSLY I AM GOING TO GO COLUMBINE ON THIS MOTHERFUCKING THREAD.

Alright pacifags, using your shit "strategy" that has never worked (inb4 India, because I can prove it wrong and you know that, so lets not waste the time), how are you to:

A) Abolish the state. The state rests on violence to maintain its power and privilege and it has only ever been overthrown by using violence.

B) Repress the bourgeoisie. Anarchism is a working class idea, meant to empower the working class by removing those that oppress them. The bourgeoisie won't go down without a fight.

C) Seize property. The redistrobution of wealth requires the aquisiton of property. If a bourgeois does not wish to submit his property, he will defend it using violence. Capitalist property would not be able to be abolished because the capitalist class will defend it with violence, and using violence to counter that wouldn't be pacifist.

D) Defend the revolution. Reactionaries aren't going to go away if you stop paying taxes. If racists, fascists, capitalists, soldiers and other enemies of anarchism organize, they can quickly establish a new state, and you wouldn't be able to stop them because it wouldn't be pacifist.

E) Reorganize the economy. This goes with seizing the property of the bourgeoisie. How is a libertarian communist economy supposed to be implemented without seizing property from those who don't wish to have it taken? Think capitalists and right wing hicks.

I'm a pacifist, but if there was a revolution, I'd fight. Because I'd see it as self defense.

[jack]

Congragulations, you are no longer a pacifist.

[Saturnine]

So be it. I love people like you.

I'm still non-violent.

[Saturnine]

You seem to be confused between Pacifist and a Passivist.

[European_Prince]

Anarchism is based on the idea that all humans are equal

Correct, but this realization actually precludes pacifism (and individualism, ironically enough for individualists). It basically boils down to utilitarianism, which is a spooky word for a lot of people, but can be easily proven correct by various lifeboat scenarios. Because all humans are equal, two humans are worth more than one, and so on. That sounds terrible, I know, but it can also sound good if you look at it differently. If there's a ticking bomb and I see two bombproof room in front of me, both unfortunately containing people, I'm going to take a quick survey and toss the bomb into the room with fewer people and slam the door. So I've just killed a room full of people, but I saved the greater number in the other room, and the even greater number in the rest of the building. What would the pacifist do? Sit down and cry until he was vaporized along with the entire building, rather than take any proactive action, presumably. Ditto the individualist, who wouldn't be able to make the quick decision. Posit the "push a man from a bridge to stop a train hurtling toward several people" scenario to an individualist, and observe the hemming and hawing. That scenario has flaws, which is why I didn't use it, but it does serve to demonstrate that the individualist, like the pacifist, finds himself frozen in his tracks by tough decisions that implicitly suggest that every individual is not infinitely valuable. It's tempting to agree with him and say that all individuals are infinitely valuable, but then how do you make these quick decisions? There's no way to determine the value of a human, of course; but what's important is to treat them as equally valuable, whatever that value may be. We can't compare infinites, but we can compare empty variables of n-value, and thus quickly determine that, yes, the 40 people in room two, plus the 1,000 people on the rest of the floor, are worth more than the 10 in room one. Sad, but true, and this is where your correct sentiment leads and why you must accept that both hardline pacifism and individualism are untenable.

[African_Prince]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

SERIOUSLY I AM GOING TO GO COLUMBINE ON THIS MOTHERFUCKING THREAD.

Alright pacifags, using your shit "strategy" that has never worked (inb4 India, because I can prove it wrong and you know that, so lets not waste the time), how are you to:

A) Abolish the state. The state rests on violence to maintain its power and privilege and it has only ever been overthrown by using violence.

B) Repress the bourgeoisie. Anarchism is a working class idea, meant to empower the working class by removing those that oppress them. The bourgeoisie won't go down without a fight.

C) Seize property. The redistrobution of wealth requires the aquisiton of property. If a bourgeois does not wish to submit his property, he will defend it using violence. Capitalist property would not be able to be abolished because the capitalist class will defend it with violence, and using violence to counter that wouldn't be pacifist.

D) Defend the revolution. Reactionaries aren't going to go away if you stop paying taxes. If racists, fascists, capitalists, soldiers and other enemies of anarchism organize, they can quickly establish a new state, and you wouldn't be able to stop them because it wouldn't be pacifist.

E) Reorganize the economy. This goes with seizing the property of the bourgeoisie. How is a libertarian communist economy supposed to be implemented without seizing property from those who don't wish to have it taken? Think capitalists and right wing hicks.

It is not only immoral to initiate acts of violence towards other sentient beings, it's tactically unwise (as far as the anarchist movement is concerned). Authority figures are not my enemies, it's their position of authority that I am opposed to. Many capitalists, police officers, judges etc. are good people, they don't understand the system they contribute to. The simple solution to bringing down the government is to put our money where our mouths are and to stop paying our taxes. Stop recognizing their authority, smoke marijuana, have sex in public areas and run around butt naked if you want to!

It basically boils down to utilitarianism, which is a spooky word for a lot of people, but can be easily proven correct by various lifeboat scenarios. Because all humans are equal, two humans are worth more than one, and so on.

Utilitarianism is a morally invalid philosophy because conscious experience is subjective and private (and morality, which is based on empathy, is only a matter of decreasing suffering and increasing happiness/pleasure). Because conscious experience is subjective, the feelings of one person can't be "added" to the feelings of another, there is no "group consciousness". The interests of 10 people do not outweigh the interests of one person, you can't empathize with a group of 10 people, you can only empathize with individuals. While, as sentient beings, a rapist and a prospective, rape victim are equally valuable and their general well-being should be given equal consideration, this does not mean that the woman's interest in not being raped is equal to the man's interest in raping her. The suffering she would experience as a result of being raped would outweigh the "suffering" he would experience from not being allowed to rape her. However, the suffering he would experience if some vigilante were to anally sodomize him with a crow bar is about equal to the suffering she would experience if he were allowed to rape her, thus both acts should be condemned.

There's no way to determine the value of a human

Value is subjective, not objective. Sentient beings are valuable because they value their interests. This does not mean, again, that all interests are equally valuable but it does mean that all individuals are equally valuable and you can't add, multiply or subtract the value of 10 lives in comparison to one.

I might have missed something I would I have replied to, I skimmed through most of these posts.

[jack]

Way to not fucking answer my questions, which I so kindly laid out to you in a point by point format.

It is not only immoral to initiate acts of violence towards other sentient beings,

Morals are lies, they don't exist and are only used by religions to justify their backwardness.

it's tactically unwise (as far as the anarchist movement is concerned).

Really? Did you not fucking see the points I just laid out? ALL OF THEM ARE TACTICAL PROBLEMS OF PACIFISM! Maybe if you cared to fucking address them instead of skimming and posting your bullshit, we wouldn't have this problem. You aren't even a part of the anarchist movement, you just discovered it a few weeks ago, you're a fucking racist piece of shit hopped up on some hippie junk looking for a clique.

Authority figures are not my enemies, it's their position of authority that I am opposed to.

They themselves know they have a position of authority, which they practice in knowing full well they are bleeding the working class dry.

Many capitalists, police officers, judges etc. are good people, they don't understand the system they contribute to.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKING RAGING OVER HERE. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON!?!?!?! Capitalists make their living OFF OUR FUCKING BACKS AND THEY KNOW IT, that's like saying a slave owner can be a good person, he just doesn't understand the system he contributes too.
Judges throw people just trying to get a bite to eat in prison every fucking day. Would you also like to ignore the hundreds of our comrades in prison everywhere from the US to Turkey?

THE POLICE PROTECT PROPERTY, HARASS THE HOMELESS, AND THEY FUCKING LOVE IT.

The simple solution to bringing down the government is to put our money where our mouths are and to stop paying our taxes. Stop recognizing their authority, smoke marijuana, have sex in public areas and run around butt naked if you want to!

You're a fucking idiot, seriously, I would kick your little racist Crimethinc ass if I got the chance. WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT CHANGING!?