Is far leftism really pacifism?

[Anarchist420]

Why do some far leftists consider themselves pacifists, when they're not?

I don't get how Dennis Kucinich and many other marxists get by calling themselves pacifists, when they support disarming people which requires violence. They also support public education/universal Health care, and that requires threats of violence as well as violence to be carried out if threatening first doesn't work.

Why didn't Martin Luther King see economic leftism the correct way? Did he lack the ability to reason? Didn't he realize that the quota system he proposed could not be enforced nonviolently?

I'm not racist or anything, but I think most of the 60s counter-culture movement didn't really undertand what liberty was. I know there are blacks who understand what liberty is, but the 60s counterculture/"civil rights" movement did not.

I really think that if the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964 hadn't been passed, then Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. may have turned violent as he didn't realize that voting causes violence as well the violation of property rights.

Do you think Jesse Jackson would be more violent if blacks weren't allowed the privelege of voting today and if no government existed?

 

[RightIsWrong]

404....Existence of logic does not exist.

 

[Matt1970]

Procrastination is like masturbation. In the end you are just screwing yourself.

 

[LumbergTech]

troll troll troll your boat

yes it must be martin luther king was confused...at least he didnt take on a persona called anarchist420 and then go around trolling the country

 

[Murloc]

lol?
disarming people requires violence?

you know, the difference is whether people is wanting to accept democratic choices or not.
If they do, no violence needed.

 

[shortylickens]

Not automatically. But it is a bit too hopeful and naive.
You have to remember not every liberal necessarily wants to get rid of guns or let criminals roam free.
But it is a general identifier of liberal ideals.

 

[jackstar7]

I feel like this is slash-fic that never really goes anywhere.

Keep working on it.

 

[Moonbeam]

The world is full of violence and it is basically capitalistic from one continent to another. That tells you just one thing, that capitalism is the real source of violence in this world. Us communist have to kill you because you are causing all the violence. We wouldn't be violent if you didn't exist. See how easy it is to really understand things. How does the OP tie his shoes?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Political extremists (really extreme) are more likely to be violent independent of ideology.

 

[Anarchist420]

Nelson Mandela is a political extremist and he's not violent, and he doesn't even seem to know that his extreme left position is violent.

 

[Craig234]

Political extremists (really extreme) are more likely to be violent independent of ideology.

That's a dangerous myth. Much of the violence in the last century has been passively paid for and voted for by 'centrists' who may have had no idea it's even going on or heard of the countries it's happening in - under policies by their leaders, for their benefit, with arms they paid for, carried out by forces they paid to train in torture.

Many of the 'radicals' have actually been nothing but the victims of unjust violence organizing into resistance - sometimes demonized by the forces oppressing them.

The holocaust that killed 6 million Jews among others was carried out by some 'extremists' leading it and a lot of not extremist people caught up in the situation - that's what modern major political and economic concentrations can do - while two million Vietnamese were killed by people who didn't think they were 'extremist' whatsoever pursuing the least extremist agenda - thinking they were 'sacrificing for freedom against tyranny' around the world, but really killing masses of farmers, in an effort that gradually had spun out of brutal colonies of colonialism many of these people had no idea about.

Saying violence is somehow caused by 'extremists' causes people to remain ignorant about mistaken wars like that and to repeat them.

Rather we need to learn that even the best intended people can get to be part of unjust violence along with 'extremists' and to take some responsibility.

An excellent book on the topic of non-extremists becoming supporters of wrong wars can be found in the book "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" by Chris Hedges.

In the 1970's, East Timoor was invaded by its neighbor, Indonesia, and 250,000 people, mostly civilians, were slaughtered. This was done with US weapons - weapons the US Congress had provided for 'improving relations' and with a stipulation that they could not be used for offense, only defense.

President Ford and Henry Kissinger had been in Indonesia the day before the invasion, and claimed complete surprise - a story that was the official story for decades until a couple years ago when the documents came out showing they had secretly given their approval, illegally, to Indonesia. This had nothing to do with 'political extremist ideology' - indeed, it's the 'extremists' who would most oppose it.

The story is little known and gets a yawn among most 'centrist' Americans - yet 250,000 people slaughtered and their loved ones would beg to differ with your trying to divert attention from who killed them.

 

[DCal430]

That's a dangerous myth. Much of the violence in the last century has been passively paid for and voted for by 'centrists' who may have had no idea it's even going on or heard of the countries it's happening in - under policies by their leaders, for their benefit, with arms they paid for, carried out by forces they paid to train in torture.

Many of the 'radicals' have actually been nothing but the victims of unjust violence organizing into resistance - sometimes demonized by the forces oppressing them.

The holocaust that killed 6 million Jews among others was carried out by some 'extremists' leading it and a lot of not extremist people caught up in the situation - that's what modern major political and economic concentrations can do - while two million Vietnamese were killed by people who didn't think they were 'extremist' whatsoever pursuing the least extremist agenda - thinking they were 'sacrificing for freedom against tyranny' around the world, but really killing masses of farmers, in an effort that gradually had spun out of brutal colonies of colonialism many of these people had no idea about.

Saying violence is somehow caused by 'extremists' causes people to remain ignorant about mistaken wars like that and to repeat them.

Rather we need to learn that even the best intended people can get to be part of unjust violence along with 'extremists' and to take some responsibility.

An excellent book on the topic of non-extremists becoming supporters of wrong wars can be found in the book "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" by Chris Hedges.

In the 1970's, East Timoor was invaded by its neighbor, Indonesia, and 250,000 people, mostly civilians, were slaughtered. This was done with US weapons - weapons the US Congress had provided for 'improving relations' and with a stipulation that they could not be used for offense, only defense.

President Ford and Henry Kissinger had been in Indonesia the day before the invasion, and claimed complete surprise - a story that was the official story for decades until a couple years ago when the documents came out showing they had secretly given their approval, illegally, to Indonesia. This had nothing to do with 'political extremist ideology' - indeed, it's the 'extremists' who would most oppose it.

The story is little known and gets a yawn among most 'centrist' Americans - yet 250,000 people slaughtered and their loved ones would beg to differ with your trying to divert attention from who killed them.

Most Vietnamese in the Vietnam war were killed by the follow country men, not Americans. My family witness countless atrocities committed by the north against the people of the south.

 

[Craig234]

Most Vietnamese in the Vietnam war were killed by the follow country men, not Americans. My family witness countless atrocities committed by the north against the people of the south.

This is true, but the war was hugely influenced by the outside would-be occupiers - the US and before them France - not to go back too far in the history.

It became a proxy war for the cold war, especially for the US. We had a lot of say in how the war was run, what the leaders did (to the point of allowing the removal of Diem), the training and arming and missions of the forces - more bombs being dropped in Vietnam than by all sides combined in WWII had an effect, and it wasn't the North Vietnamese.

Who knows what could have happened had US leaders have responded to Ho Chi Minh's attempts to solicit their support to end its backing of foreign occupation.

The north was a brutal, torturing, terrorizing murderous force.

There's no excusing that - nor is there an easy answer to the suggestion that it had to be to win against the powerful forces of wealthy countries.

I don't think it needs to be too controversial to say that we should be careful about our well-intended efforts not being misguided, because they can cause great harm if they are.

It's hard enough to get them to be well-inteded at all rather than corrupt policies based on our 'interests' and making pacts that will oppress. Or serve domestic politics, 'save face'.

There was going to be a lot of bad violence; it was a civil war. Ho Chi Minh may have had a noble cause one minute - freedom from foreign occuptation - but he was brutal in dealing with the competition with even his fellow communists for leadership another. It's hard to find the best policy, who to back and how, in such a civil war situation.

But our backing of the French and much of our violence was for reasons other than trying to good, and a lot of it was misguided.

Some of those 2 million+ Veitnamese killed would have been without our involvement, as the civil war went on, but I think there could have been much less violence.

Our having 'our reputation on the line' from the 1950's didn't help us avoid violence.

It was very hard for us to stop the violence with the whole 'it would make the previous losses pointless' type views.

 

[DCal430]

This is true, but the war was hugely influenced by the outside would-be occupiers - the US and before them France - not to go back too far in the history.

It became a proxy war for the cold war, especially for the US. We had a lot of say in how the war was run, what the leaders did (to the point of allowing the removal of Diem), the training and arming and missions of the forces - more bombs being dropped in Vietnam than by all sides combined in WWII had an effect, and it wasn't the North Vietnamese.

Who knows what could have happened had US leaders have responded to Ho Chi Minh's attempts to solicit their support to end its backing of foreign occupation.

The north was a brutal, torturing, terrorizing murderous force.

There's no excusing that - nor is there an easy answer to the suggestion that it had to be to win against the powerful forces of wealthy countries.

I don't think it needs to be too controversial to say that we should be careful about our well-intended efforts not being misguided, because they can cause great harm if they are.

It's hard enough to get them to be well-inteded at all rather than corrupt policies based on our 'interests' and making pacts that will oppress. Or serve domestic politics, 'save face'.

There was going to be a lot of bad violence; it was a civil war. Ho Chi Minh may have had a noble cause one minute - freedom from foreign occuptation - but he was brutal in dealing with the competition with even his fellow communists for leadership another. It's hard to find the best policy, who to back and how, in such a civil war situation.

But our backing of the French and much of our violence was for reasons other than trying to good, and a lot of it was misguided.

Some of those 2 million+ Veitnamese killed would have been without our involvement, as the civil war went on, but I think there could have been much less violence.

Our having 'our reputation on the line' from the 1950's didn't help us avoid violence.

It was very hard for us to stop the violence with the whole 'it would make the previous losses pointless' type views.

Yep, Ho Chi Minh went to the U.S first asked for help and was rejected. If the U.S has helped them remove the French, Vietnam could be a democracy today.

 

[Infohawk]

And boom, this is the payoff for all those seemingly legitimate topic posts. Y'all gettin' trolled.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm still waiting to hear the punch line....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's a dangerous myth.

Here's an inconvenient truth.

 

[Abwx]

Nelson Mandela is a political extremist and he's not violent, and he doesn't even seem to know that his extreme left position is violent.

Wasnt it rather than the apartheid regime was an extremist one,
and as such, rebelling against such a system is logically branded
extremist by this very same system..??...

 

[Lemon law]

In terms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He only won his partial position by the use of non-violence, what really was the game winner, was the very unacceptable and repulsive violence used by his King's opponents.

Of course I expect that reality will sail right over our Op's head, in one ear and out the other, without encountering even an iota of Anarchist 420 brain matter.

 

[Steeplerot]

Leftists have both sides. Pacifism is a stereotype hippie thing. Not valid for 2011.

Who do you mean? Last I saw the guys in greece seem to enjoy the smell of a roasting bank by moonlight. There really are no leftist orginizarions who are not part of the system themselves. (Being a reformist is not far left you numbskull) far left are revolutionary. Democrats in usa are reformist -petit bougsie.
This was such a waste of time I know...

 

[QuantumPion]

Here's an inconvenient truth.

It's even worse than you think...

 

[Zebo]

Interesting you bring up civil rights act... much of the far left was involved with non-violent efforts to achieve that. They even screened would be protesters and bus riders for temperament. Who got violent were segregationists... MO depends on whether you have upper hand or not, not ideology. Violence has it's place as does non violence.

 

[IGBT]

it's a mental disorder. disturbed thought process.

 

[Carmen813]

Why do some far leftists consider themselves pacifists, when they're not?

I don't get how Dennis Kucinich and many other marxists get by calling themselves pacifists, when they support disarming people which requires violence. They also support public education/universal Health care, and that requires threats of violence as well as violence to be carried out if threatening first doesn't work.

Why didn't Martin Luther King see economic leftism the correct way? Did he lack the ability to reason? Didn't he realize that the quota system he proposed could not be enforced nonviolently?

I'm not racist or anything, but I think most of the 60s counter-culture movement didn't really undertand what liberty was. I know there are blacks who understand what liberty is, but the 60s counterculture/"civil rights" movement did not.

I really think that if the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964 hadn't been passed, then Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. may have turned violent as he didn't realize that voting causes violence as well the violation of property rights.

Do you think Jesse Jackson would be more violent if blacks weren't allowed the privelege of voting today and if no government existed?

Kuccinich isn't a marxist.

 

[Siddhartha]

OP,
How do you define "leftism"?