Ambrose Andrews wrote:
Ruling classes have never in all of recorded human history paid the slightest attention to pacifist or moral pleadings to peacefully give up their wealth and power. Pacifists consequently direct their appeals to the oppressed, which disarms and weakens successful resistance and contributes to the maintenance of the system which causes war. This is an ahistorical argument that does not take into account specific examples of nonviolent resistance as a tactical form of struggle, which, I would argue, is the closest marxists have ever come to pacifism as such. In other words, sometimes marxists have supported tactical non-violence, but not pacifism as an ethic. Just to give two examples off the top of my head, the refusal to fight among the troops during the Vietnam War had considerable consequences for the ruling class, as did the Civil-Rights movement., both of which were in the main non-violent movements. Of course, there was quite a bit of fragging by the troops as well, and many Civil Rights organizers kept weapons in their homes for protection. In any event, in addition to the citation provided by Andrews, Caudwell also has a Marxist critique of pacifism which can be read here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/caudwell/1935/pacifism-violence.htm ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
