#pacificism

[edenfenixblogs]

Where’s that one post that’s like “why are all pacifists portrayed as brainless hippies who have no worries when every pacifist ive ever known is actually one second away from screaming for thirty minutes straight” because MOOD

[dailyanarchistposts]

Lessons

The structure and culture of the U.S. military provide an excellent case study in hierarchy and authority. Far too often, anarchists define themselves as being “non-hierarchical” or “anti-authoritarian” without articulating what they mean by hierarchy or authority. David Graeber describes how the term “hierarchy,” “is often thrown about so casually that when an author uses it, it’s very difficult to know precisely what they mean. To say that a set of items is organized into a hierarchy, after all, is merely to say that those items are ranked in some way.” In reference to social organizations, this “ranking of items” refers to people, with some individuals being positioned above one another. Authority, as a concept, refers to the delegation of responsibility, power or control to certain people for a variety of reasons. Authoritarian forms of social organization embrace and legitimize hierarchy, granting individuals or groups higher up in the hierarchy the ability to exert control over those below.

Murray Bookchin described hierarchy as, “a complex system of command and obedience in which elites enjoy varying degrees of control over their subordinates.” This description articulates an authoritarian system in which certain people within the hierarchy have more power and capacity to subjugate those below. When discussing this complex system, it is useful to deconstruct and delineate between forms of formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy.

The military is a clear example of formal hierarchy, where each individual is provided a rank defining their position. There is a clear chain of command, with Lieutenant above Sergeant, which is above Private, etc. Everyone functioning within the organization understands the relationship between themselves and others; who they are subordinate to and who is subordinate to them.

At the same time, there are examples of informal hierarchy within the military, where individuals are subordinate to others based on social relationships that are not articulated as explicitly as military rank. The clearest examples of this are white supremacy and patriarchy. All of the interviewees described the racist subjugation of “the enemy” or residents in occupied lands, and that also translates to racism toward people of color within the military. Similarly, sexism and patriarchal domination are rampant within military culture, demonstrated by the high number of sexual assaults, harassment and abuse directed toward service members who challenge the gender binary system in any way.

These forms of societal oppression occur simultaneously with and in relation to the formal hierarchy of military rank. As Joyce articulates: “I don’t think that it would be possible for the military to exist without hierarchical oppressions. Additionally, if these systems ceased to exist, from the most local to the most global level, there wouldn’t really be any purpose for war since war is about oppression at its root.”

Recognizing the ways that formal and informal hierarchies often exist simultaneously, sometimes occurring on parallel tracks, sometimes overlapping with one another and sometimes exacerbating each other is critical in developing a broader analysis of hierarchy or authoritarianism.

One of the things to learn from the experiences of these vets is the understanding that it is easier to resist clearly defined authority and the visible forms of coercion that uphold it.

Rigid, formal hierarchies like the military contain explicit roles, rules and expectations that create many opportunities to resist in ways that reclaim agency and autonomy. Informal hierarchies and unofficial coercion become harder to recognize, analyze and oppose. While informal hierarchy and de facto positions of authority are often quite opaque, the role of anarchists is to identify, expose and oppose all forms of authoritarianism. In addition to articulating the oppression and domination inherent in authoritarian social structures, the experiences of these veterans demonstrate the inefficiency of hierarchy. Not only is hierarchy oppressive, it simply does not work. There is a myth of hierarchical, authoritarian institutions functioning quickly, efficiently and effectively and that even if they cause undesirable social relations, they are necessary in order to complete tasks. However, these veterans routinely described the inability of their units to complete tasks and missions in spite of, and often as the result of, the rigid, authoritarian structure.

In describing the Army Rangers, Graham said, “Being in one of the best units of the military and seeing how incompetent people could be, how much waste there was, how much ignorance there was, how we were doing counterproductive things and we couldn’t change it…it’s so rigid and inflexible, to the point of ineffectiveness.” If the structure of one of the most elite, highly-trained units of the United States military leads to incompetence and ineffectiveness, then this dispels the widely held belief that authoritarian structures are necessary or even beneficial.

Obviously, the US military successfully effectuates missions and wages war throughout the world. However, as these veterans can attest, on closer examination, one can see that the missions are flawed and less successful than they first appear. Further, considering the massive amount of human and financial resources at the disposal of the US military, it is inevitable that it would fulfill missions, regardless of its structure. One can only imagine the capacity of an organization with millions of members and billions of dollars and what that organization could accomplish if it were organized in a non-hierarchical, egalitarian way that acknowledged each individual’s autonomy and decision-making power. It is almost unfathomable that such an organization would come to the decision to take collective action to invade, occupy and subjugate another people, which only underscores the distinction between authoritarian and egalitarian structures.

In addition to these lessons about the nuances of hierarchy, coercion and authoritarianism, the voices of these vets can also teach other anarchists about the possibilities for civilians to build a strong movement against US militarism that embraces the strategy of resistance by service members. As the experiences of these interviewees demonstrate, economic position and lack of access to viable employment or affordable education are principal reasons that individuals join the military. It is therefore essential to incorporate a strong class analysis into any anarchist critiques of militarism and any movements opposed to war and occupation. At this historical moment of staggering unemployment and rapidly increasing tuition rates at universities around the country, it is important to acknowledge how this relates to militarism. Considering the continued presence of the US military throughout the world and the volatility of US foreign policy, there is a strong possibility that there will be recruitment drives in the near future. If that occurs, there will likely be massive numbers of young people who are unemployed, underemployed or desperate for an expensive education who will be susceptible to the false promises of the US military. If this happens, it is important for radicals and anti-military activists to confront and counter this recruitment.

In developing the arguments to convince young people not to join the military, it is crucial to incorporate this awareness of class and the economic motivations of so many recruits. Moralistic, ideological and political arguments against the military are valuable, but are insufficient for many who feel desperate for work or affordable education. Appeals against joining the military should include non-military options for scholarships, job training and employment opportunities (when available), but more importantly counter-recruitment should dispel the myths of the economic advantages of joining the military.

These anarchist veterans are well positioned to counter the claims that enlisting in the military guarantees a career or increases your long-term employment opportunities. The majority of the interviewees are unemployed or underemployed. None of them that received military training that has resulted in a career in the civilian sector. Of those who deployed, nearly all of them struggle with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) or Military Sexual Trauma (MST) that has impacted their ability to go to school or hold a job. Few receive adequate treatment or benefits from the military for these diagnoses. Some, but not all, have received the GI Bill or other financial aid they were promised. Those who did not receive an “Honorable Discharge” are not able to get these scholarships and face challenges getting other benefits or finding employment. Arguably, the individuals who received unfavorable discharges are in a worse position than they were before joining the military, as they have fewer job prospects and still cannot afford an education.

The voices of these anarchist veterans can also play a crucial role in helping civilians understand the effectiveness of GI resistance. According to a number of radical histories, organizing and resistance by service members played a critical role in weakening the strength of the US military during the Vietnam War. Given that historical precedent, along with the experiences of these interviewees and numerous other examples of GI resistance having a tangible impact on the ability of the military to wage war, it is crucial that anarchists explore GI resistance as a strategy to oppose war, occupation and militarism.

Supporting GI resistance can be an effective form of anti-war action that is in line with anarchist principles of direct action. While much of what passes for anti-war activism are symbolic protests or appeals to politicians, GI resistance allows for action that directly confronts the apparatus of the military.

As discussed above, these forms of resistance can include work slow-downs, sabotage, time theft, refusal of orders, going AWOL, along with publicly refusing deployment. A common theme among the interviewees was recognizing moments during their enlistment where they could have resisted and likely would have had they known of existing networks of support.

As Crystal describes considering refusing to deploy: “And I thought about not going. I really did think about just not going, but I didn’t know about any of the resistance movements or the GI resistance movement and I didn’t think it was possible.” Joyce describes a similar impulse to refuse to go on their second deployment: “If I had had any inkling of encouragement or a supportive community, I probably wouldn’t have gone back. But I just felt like it was just me and I was in it alone.”

It is crucial for anarchists to examine these possibilities and develop strategies to foster and encourage resistance. Understanding the experiences of anti-authoritarians who have gone through the military can help civilian anarchists recognize the possible forms of resistance and how to identify and support individuals and actions consistent with anarchist praxis.

As Seth articulated: “The military has mechanisms built into it that could slow down the system, it was pretty clear from the get go not only did these things exist but the will to utilize them was there.”

There is an exciting opportunity for anarchists to support service members who have the will to exploit these mechanisms that will slow down, disrupt and ultimately abolish US militarism.

[victusinveritas]

“Prisoner”  by Dick Gaughan. A timely song about Carl von Ossietzky, Nobel Peace Prize winner and victim of the Nazis.  It will always take more than talk to get rid of fascists. 

[purplequeensquid]

In one of my psychology classes, we were talking about how violence in cartoons and media affects aggression in children. One of the studies we looked at evidenced that children are more likely to identify with the "hero," and the violence that hero characters exhibit are more likely to increase aggression than if the villains are violent.

This made me think of how Aang is a pacifist (which he makes clear both in word and action), and how hesitant he is to kill enemies, especially Ozai. He's the hero of the story, the one kids are most likely to identify with, and he's the least violent person in the whole show. He even sometimes tries to make friends with his enemies, such as Zuko when he was the Blue Spirit.

Contrasting that, the villains are quite merciless and brutal. Azula in particular has no qualms with destroying other people. The first scene where she is introduced, she is threatening the life of her own men (verbal violence), and later almost kills Aang with a bolt of lightning (literal violence). Even Zuko in his villain era burned down Suki's entire village.

Though there are many deeper threads narratively surrounding the pacificism vs violence, I think the psychology of how this affected kids watching the show is very interesting. Theoretically, kids who watched Avatar are far less likely to be aggressive than kids who watched shows like Power Rangers (where the hero characters are engaged in intense battles like every episode).

[highlyentropicmind]

People normally: "War is evil, imperialism is wrong, I have no enemies" People when talking about the Spanish conquest of Mexico: "bUt ThE aZtEcS wErE bAd"

[yngwrthr]

We cannot, unless we have become bourgeois pacifists or opportunists, forget that we are living in a class society from which there is no way out, nor can there be, save through the class struggle.

Lenin, “Military Program of Proletarian Revolution”, 1916.

[feelinkeeli]

As someone who identifies as a pacifist I really appreciate the amount of pacifists that exist in Star Wars as well as the variety.

There's the anti-violence type represented with Satine and the New Mandos.

The Harm Reductionists as shown with the Jedi, Alderaani, Toydarians, and Nabooians.

And the sacredness of life with Master Fay (and Zayne Carrick technically) .

I dunno. I just think it's neat.

[north-of-annwn]

Consent vs Defending Sovereignty

I’m giving this its own post because it’s important. I’ve heard a lot of witches say they don’t understand how someone can say they are about consent and also be curse positive.Here’s the thing though, the two are not mutually exclusive. ‘Consent’ is extremely vague until we define the circumstances that consent applies and who’s consent is more valuable to the subject.

Just to give insight into my personal ethics, my path is about protecting my sovereignty and the sovereignty of others, and so I believe that every person has a right to consensual boundaries of their mind, body, and spirit. Like I said before though, this can end up in situationally gray areas that require some critical assessment.

It’s unethical to touch someone or perform any medical procedure without someone’s consent. However, if you’re trying  to protect them or trying to save their life, there are different rules because of the circumstances. We have Good Samaritan laws based on the ethical philosophy that it’s better to protect life and safety first and ask forgiveness later. Protection Magic and Prayer falls in this gray area where you have to assess the situation.

Similarly, to quote @breelandwalker​, it’s completely unethical to walk up to someone and punch them in the face. But if that person is physically harming me or someone else, I will absolutely get physical in order to reclaim my own safety/sovereignty in that moment or help someone else reclaim theirs. Think of it like circles. We each have our own circle. If someone walks into our circle and harms us we have every right to forcibly reclaim our circle, with aggression if necessary. They lost the right to their sovereignty as soon as they decided to violate mine. See, power dynamics in a situation matters.

And this is where we get into the nitty gritty of personal ethics.

If your personal ethics are rooted in pacifism and you refuse to harm anyone no matter what physical, emotional, or spiritual boundaries they’ve crossed that’s your choice. Personally though, I wouldn’t be able to call it ethical and here’s why. Ultimately pacifism benefits the oppressor. Every time. It’s a hard pill to swallow but pacifism is at best rooted in privilege, and at worst it’s virtue signaling. 

No one has the right to tell someone being harmed that they cannot defend their sovereignty in whatever manner available to them. And believe me, if you tell me that you’re pacifist as some kind of honor badge, I will make note that you’re not a safe person to go to when my safety or sovereignty is being threatened.