My thoughts when I read this question is that there are so many degrees of pacifism and so many degrees of being for or against something, “being against pacifism” is a meaninglessly binary concept. I mean, to some people pacifism means not being aggressive, while others reject all forms of violence and won’t hit back no matter how much they get hit. Orwell was specifically addressing how to deal with nazi Germany in the lead-up to WWII, not to pacifism as a peaceful attitude in general. Which pacifism are you talking about?

On social media complexity always gets reduced to swiping left/right or voting up/down. This very stark and false oversimplification, mostly for the sake of thinking less and scrolling faster, has trained us to reduce every issue to a 100% right side and a million % wrong one. Perfect good vs utter evil. Let’s not keep doing that.

My pacifist grandfather served in the US army medical Corp in both WW2 and Korea. He saw some of the worst aspects of both of those conflicts, particularly Korea. I don’t think anyone would think that he was helping the Nazis by treating the wounded.

Ultimately, pacifism isn’t about choosing to reject violence, it’s about choosing who is an acceptable target of the violence and the choice is made to appear as a non-choice by failing to categorize state violence as violence because you are not the current target of that violence. How many of the powerless should die to save the powerful from any consequences? I don’t think utilitarianism always makes the most sense, but I think this is a case where the math and morality should make it clear why this is a deeply flawed way of thinking.

Pacifism, like democracy and capitalism, are functional only if everyone participate in them in good faith. There was never in human history a group of people where everyone participated in something in good faith.

Pacifists are selfish, evil, and often hypocritical. I find most modern “pacifists” have no issue with wielding violence, or supporting violence as long as that violence is abstracted to a third party such as the state while constantly deriding people who wish to defend themselves and loved ones from state violence.

Truth is these pacifists would happily see us in camps as long as they get to keep their smug attitudes, and platitudes while avoiding getting their hands directly bloody.

In the end pacifists always implicitly support the status quo.

Nonsense, who was against Gandhi MLK Mandela? At the same time, MLK never undercut Malcom X, the pacifist and the warrior can work together, they each have their role.

Imo the worst pacifists are those that want to prevent others from being able to defend themselves.

If you’re going to be beat up and you chose to not attempt to defend yourself in any way, then I’ll think that you’re being stupid, but ultimately it’s your life, your choice.

But if someone else is going to be beat up, and you try to make sure that they won’t be able to defend themselves, then that makes you an accessory to the assault in my eyes.

A prototypic Red-basher who pretended to be on the Left was George Orwell. In the middle of World War II, as the Soviet Union was fighting for its life against the Nazi invaders at Stalingrad, Orwell announced that a “willingness to criticize Russia and Stalin is the test of intellectual honesty. It is the only thing that from a literary intellectual’s point of view is really dangerous” (Monthly Review, 5/83). Safely ensconced within a virulently anticommunist society, Orwell (with Orwellian doublethink) characterized the condemnation of communism as a lonely courageous act of defiance. Today, his ideological progeny are still at it, offering themselves as intrepid left critics of the Left, waging a valiant struggle against imaginary Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist hordes.

m. parenti from blackshirts and reds

This is something I’ve wanted to write into a character in a fictitious world, but one that’s not even openly in foreign war.

He insists that people need to peacefully understand each other, rather than run lives by settling conflicts with bullets and bombs; he staunchly believes that war is the most horrible thing ever. But a second character points out to him, oppression delivers much of the same circumstance as war in a state of permanence. At least violence can lead to change. The summary quote being just “Everyone is at war.”

If you keep on caving in to bullies, one day, they’ll take everything from you.

Look, as a programmer I’m lazy. And I’ve worked a lot of extra hours due to that laziness, to automate stuff and have less work to do in the future.

It’s the same with pacifism. If you want peace, sometimes you have first to use extreme violence to eradicate the bastards that don’t.

First murder all fascists, billionaires, and similar threats to peace. And educate the young so they won’t become threats to peace again.

Then we can have peace.

You want at least a stick large enough to hit back or scare away aggressors. I agree that a no war world would be best, but that can be achieved by mutual disarment, not by one sided pacifism.

I think they waste their time. At this point, signing waivers and petitions don’t matter. Unfortunately until there’s bloodshed things won’t change. Politicians have zero accountability, you vote and it really doesn’t matter, it’s the illusion of having a choice.

No neutral on a moving train.

You can’t oversimplify the world in to “our side” and “their side,” and say “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” There are countless different sides and there are factions within those sides that have different motivations and agendas. That’s simply a fact, and to pretend otherwise is just lazy.

Pacifists are generally more correct than most people because they’ve figured out the “no war” part of “no war but class war,” and the vast majority of war is not class war (or is perpetrated by the ruling class). I’m not a pacifist but I have respect for those who are.

To be fair, Orwell’s argument is understandable in the specific context of WWII, but it is not a generalizable principle.