Enough about your babies, their births or purchases from China or Africa, the new meaning of life you've supposedly found while the rest of us, especially working class mothers, get nothing but accusations of how poorly we raise ours. The yups, including their celebrity members, are like kids with new puppies to which they attach metaphysical importance because these puppies sprang out of their own wise, svelte and benevolent bodies. Makes me wanna hurl how they expect the rest of us to be enthralled by them reproducing themselves. A couple of moments from now, these kids will be writing books about how their parents didn't even raise 'em.
is neo-liberalism, Marxism-Leninism and saddest of all, the Anarchist Federation of France's. Usually the conservatives and fascists will let you know directly how much they hate you if you disagree with them, but the "progressives" say they love everyone until you say something that implies their feet are made of clay, and then they will cut out your heart and sign off with "regards" or have a "nice day."
I still have a long way to go in my life and thought to be non-violent, and the "anti-war" movement has a long way to go before it becomes a peace movement, but even my hopes that at least it was an anti-war movement are dashed because those leading it are not even really anti-war (UFPJ et al), let alone really pro-peace. Of course, many are not really against capitalism and/or cannot see any alternatives, like this one here below
Yesterday at the “anti-war” rally in Ottawa, you (a speaker) called Canada's war in Afghanistan "unwinnable," as some also call the US war in Iraq. So is your organization in favour of wars that can be won? They can always nuke 'em to "win," you know. Would you like that? Are you anti-war or not? The peace movement has a long history of unclarity about this. All war is immoral, period. Using qualifying adjectives with the word "war" implies you are not really against war but only against particular wars, as many in the US are against the current war in Iraq, calling it an "illegal" war. In my opinion, that is just some sort of political adventurism because I guess you are against some people who wage war, like the Conservatives or Republicans, but not the other warmongers. Five minutes ago, the same people were also calling both "illegal" and "unwinnable" wars "Bush's war" and "Harper's war," confused about the fact that all presidents and prime ministers have always waged war. As long as the people speaking publicly as if they are anti-war are confused, we will not create a real peace movement.
I cannot agree more that all wars are bad wars, however. You would agree that wars are sometimes imposed on people and states, such was the case in the first and second world wars.
This is a "reality" that makes pacifism irrelevant. I do not view the peace movement as pacifist. Indeed, I view it as the movement that expresses the democratic will of people for a just world that is free of man's inhumanity to man.
In the case of Afghanistan, I oppose our role there even if the war is winnable. I oppose it, simply because we accepted the role of aggressors, when we clearly have the choice not to, just like we did in Iraq. The Afghan people did not attack us, neither did they declare war against us. We are imposing the war on them and that is wrong.
But I agree with you that there are no "good" wars for anyone, and when I said that this war is not winnable, I did not imply my agreement with winnable wars. I said so merely to show the barbarism and cronyism of our warmongering political leaders, who voted for the extension to 2011.
No, I do NOT agree that pacifism is "irrelevant" or that there were/are no there options to any war, even the sacred World Wars. The "Allies" loved the fascists until there own economic interests were threatened, despite all the hype to the contrary (see http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PAU20070127&articleId=4607). They watched Hitler take Poland, turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, refused to allow Jews to immigrate to their countries, profited from their slave labour, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Saying that there are no options but war without even trying any is reprehensible. We always have choices. There are many options besides war, such as non-cooperation, embargo, etc. The Danes successfully fought the Nazi occupation without weapons. Study the history of non-violent resistance before believing that war is ever an alternative. If you are familiar with this history and still say that war is an option, then you are not against all wars, period. If you are unaware of it, please do some research. Look up the War Resisters' League and what they can tell you about that history. You reject pacifism as "irrelevant," but I'm not sure how much you know of its history/current practice.
Are you saying that the French resistance was wrong? Are you saying that Cuban resistance to the Bay of Pigs invasion was wrong? How about the Vietnamese, would pacifism have won the Vietnamese their war for liberation and independence?
I disagree with you when you mix up between pacifism as an option and war as a consequence. It is agreed that war, historically is a consequence of economic greed, whereas pacifism is the option to allow monsters of the world to rule the day.
I would not adopt a pacifist option if and when I know that I am being attacked for profit. You may choose that option and that's your prerogative.
Finally, of course there is an alternative to war. I did not say there are none. However, reality shows that Imperialism and powerful corporate interests have null interest in pursuing such alternative.
I'm saying that the French resistance shooting back was not the only way, as the Danes and many others have shown. Organized mass non-violence worked in Denmark, so who's to say it wouldn't have worked in France? Other people in France were using non-violent methods, such as the Rosenstrasse women mentioned in the wikipedia link I sent you. How could either or us know whether it would have worked in Vietnam or anywhere else? The issue isn't so much winning or not ("winning" is one of THEIR values) but trying not to become like them, like the Vietnamese National Liberation Front did and all other Maoists/Stalinists/Leninists/Trotskyists have become. FARC's a great example of that. As far as Cuba is concerned, again, I don't know, but 1200 unpopular guys coming ashore--what would they have done against 10 million Cubans who didn't agree with them? Probably not much. Your argument is that some violence and some wars are okay, right? Just admit that. You don't have to be a pacifist. Non-violence is not something I expect the imperialists to practice, LOL. When you say they don't have any interest in pacifism, it sounds as if you support electoral means, getting the elite to change their ways. Of course, they never will. We have to be the change we want to see in the world, and I for one, want no violence against other people and the planet, period.
It very much looks like you and I share the same vision Ian;"want no violence against other people and the planet, period."
Where we differ is how to achieve this vision. Although I advocate organization and education, in order to yes..elect..true democratic representatives, you advocate pacifism.
You can't have it both ways. Be a pacifist and at the same time one for regime change. Pacifism cannot lead to "regime change" - a must in my opinion - if we are to rid the world of imperialist systems.
Capitalism must evolve in order for it to implode and it is evolving fast. You and I are are proof of that, but so are all the liberation and resistance movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America that oppose imperialist hegemony and occupations.
Let me see if I have this straight: you want no violence, period, BUT you want “regime change,” which you believe cannot be done with pacifism but only by 1) electing more leaders of some kind to replace the present ones and by 2) believing that capitalism is evolving and will implode.
We don’t share the same vision at all. I don’t want any regime changes because I don’t believe in regimes, i.e., states and governments and leaders, and I certainly don’t believe that replacing particular capitalists or greenwashing capitalism, etc., can change it. It can’t be reformed because profit is what drives it, not human need, no matter who’s running it. So I can have it both ways. I want no states, and I want to use no violence to achieve that. Black South Africans might not have all wanted to end the state, but they certainly threw out the apartheid regime without violence, so even people who aren’t anarchists, as I am, are often for regime change via non-violent means. They couldn’t vote, so they had no liberal illusions to overcome about that false choice. I think you are probably a liberal (lower-case “l”) who is not in touch with the fact that he is not really against all violence but only some violence. I’m not trying to get you to agree with me about non-violent resistance but only to admit that you are not against all violence against human beings. I have had this same conversation with others many, many times, and its very rare that someone will admit that he/she believes that some violence is justified, a belief which to me is the root of the whole problem.