Pacifism and Its Contradictions: A Historical and Modern Perspective

There has never been as much talk about pacifism as there is today. However, all over the world, people are still killing each other, and we still have not embraced the philosophy of anti-war. Every historical period has its tools and politics and its brand of hypocrisy. Back in the day, people destroyed each other in the name of Christianity and human love. Nowadays, only the most backward governments fight in the name of Jesus Christ. 

Progressive countries, on the other hand, have fought and killed in the name of pacifism itself. The irony is hard to miss, but even satire struggles to keep up with such absurdity. At some point, even the sharpest satire feels powerless. The elements of liberation through war become meaningless when faced with the horrors of ignorance and hatred. 

Pacifism has a history, just like democracy. The bourgeoisie once tried to build a society where human relationships were based on reason. They replaced blind traditions with critical thinking. Just like capitalism tore down guilds that hindered production, the bourgeoisie tore down the privileged institutions of the past. Monarchical absolutism, a relic of the Middle Ages, was another target. 

Bourgeois democracy called for equal laws, free competition, and councils to handle public matters. They wanted national relations to follow the same principles. However, here is the contradiction: War, which solves problems by force, completely denies the logic of these principles. Instead of encouraging war, promoting lasting peace makes way more sense. 

That is the main argument for pacifism. 

Pacifism means opposing war and rejecting violence as a way to solve disputes. It is a broad philosophy that peace is the better solution to international conflicts. Some pacifists reject all forms of force, no matter what. Others take a more pragmatic approach, believing that peace is usually the best option but acknowledging that there may be exceptions. 

War, violence, and lethal weapons are morally wrong. Pragmatic pacifism does not hold such an absolute stance but insists there are better ways to resolve conflicts. The costs of war far outweigh the benefits. 

The term “dove” is often used informally to describe people who prefer peace over war. However, not all doves are pacifists. Some believe war is sometimes necessary, like when legal doctrines justify it as a last resort. Even so, the dove has become a universal symbol of hope, safety, and peace. It starkly contrasts the eagle, representing war and aggression, and even ties back to the story of Noah’s Ark. 

At its core, pacifism is the philosophy of being anti-war. However, it does not mean rejecting every kind of violence, physical force, or property destruction. Anti-militarism specifically opposes the military systems of modern nation-states, not war itself, because it believes violence can sometimes be justified. Philosophers have clarified pacifism by distinguishing a general commitment to nonviolence from a narrower focus on opposing war. 

Holmes coined the term “nonviolence” to describe the broader view of anti-war pacifism, opposing violence in all its forms. Pacifism is often defined alongside ideas of justified violence, rooted in the Western tradition of just war theory. 

It is usually seen as part of a moral spectrum that includes realism, just war theory, and pacifism. The ongoing debate about how pacifism and anti-war philosophy relate focuses on whether just war theory starts with a presumption against war. Some writers use just war theory to argue for a version of pacifism, often called “contingent pacifism” or “war pacifism.” 

Robert L. Holmes strongly critiques just war theory, saying it often misses the central moral issue: the massive, deliberate killing of people in war is fundamentally immoral. On the other hand, Cheyney Ryan points out that while just war theory and pacifism have developed through mutual criticism, pacifism is often dismissed as a fringe idea. 

Pacifism is not a modern invention—it has been around for centuries in history and literature. Jainism, founded by Mahavira between 599 and 527 BC, teaches love for all life, human and non-human. Jainism values life as a rare chance to achieve enlightenment and violence, no matter the reason, is seen as horrifying. 

Ancient Greece had examples of pacifism, even during the Peloponnesian War. Hegetorides of Thasos led nonviolent protests, and Aristophanes’ comedy Lysistrata features a sex strike by Athenian women to stop the war. Based on the Sermon on the Mount, many believe Jesus was a pacifist. Peace churches like the Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, and Brethren have upheld pacifist beliefs for centuries. 

The Quaker-controlled Colony of Pennsylvania even adopted pacifist policies. For 75 years, from 1681 to 1756, the colony was essentially unarmed and avoided most warfare. 

In the 19th century, anti-war sentiment was on the rise. Many socialist groups and movements of the time were anti-military, arguing that war was just a way for governments to control the working class. Workers were forced to fight and die in wars that did not benefit them, all for the political elites who never suffered on the front lines. 

The assassination of French socialist leader Jean Jaurès on July 31, 1914, marked a turning point. His death, combined with the failure of the Second International to oppose World War I, is seen as one of the biggest failures of the socialist movement. They abandoned their stance against chauvinism and militarism, which led to disastrous consequences. 

In the late 19th century, British and colonial settlers in Aotearoa (New Zealand) used various tactics, including warfare, to take land from the Māori people. In one remarkable instance, a Māori leader believed he could rally his warriors to defend their rights without using violence—even though they had successfully defeated their opponents just a year earlier. 

Te Whiti o Rongomai convinced 2,000 people to peacefully welcome armed troops into their village, even offering them food and drink. He and his followers allowed themselves to be detained without resistance. This kind of pacifism highlighted a key flaw in its philosophy: it often could not address deeper economic and social issues, the roots of conflict. 

Capitalist realism has its limitations, too. It hopes for lasting peace through logical harmony, which sounds good in theory but often falls flat. It is even sadder when compared to ideals like freedom, equality, and fraternity. 

While capitalism has advanced science and technology, it has not been able to regulate society rationally. Instead, it has created weapons of mass destruction that medieval societies could not even imagine. The worsening international situation and the rise of militarism have undermined pacifism while ironically giving it a new relevance. This “new life” for pacifism is very different from what it used to be. 

The so-called “peace of arms” describes the decade before war broke out. That period was not peaceful—it was filled with constant colonial wars in Africa, Polynesia, and Asia. Even though Europe avoided wars after 1871 (despite a few close calls), the petty bourgeoisie pushed public opinion to believe that growing armies guaranteed peace. 

This mindset eventually led to the creation of a famous international legal organization. Capitalist countries and big businesses did not object to pacifist interpretations of militarism because it did not interfere with their interests. 

In his book Thinking About War and Peace, Martin Ceadel defines pacifism as people who prefer peace over war but believe that some wars might be necessary if they help achieve peace in the long run. It goes beyond conditional pacifism, which only allows war or force in rare circumstances. 

Because of this, political efforts to achieve peace might still involve military defense if it is necessary to secure global peace. In his book Ethics, Killing, and War, Richard Norman explores a position between pacifism and “defensism.” Defense gets all defensive battles and countermeasures as appropriate. It is a reason for fighting in the word of harmony but does not entirely align with defensism’s wider approval of brutality. 

This method likewise bypasses pacifism’s extremely romantic flank. Pacifism occasionally objects to actual defensive battles if they disrupt the possibility of global unity. Nevertheless, this ratio between pacifism and defense is not completely clear-cut. 

In theory and politics, pacifism shares some ideas with doctrines of social harmony and anti-war efforts that aim to resolve conflicts between classes. The contradictions between capitalist countries often stem from the same economic roots as the class struggle. Over time, people have hoped to soften the class struggle gradually. If that happens, society needs to be ready to manage national conflicts and turn them into opportunities for progress. 

The petty bourgeoisie—long considered the guardians of democracy’s traditions and illusions—underwent significant changes in the second half of the 19th century. While their role shrank due to the development of capitalist technology, they did not wholly disappear. Universal suffrage and conscription gave them political power, but big business did not eliminate small capitalists. Instead, small capitalists became dependent on the credit system. 

In politics, representatives of big capitalists co-opted the petty bourgeoisie by adopting their theories, exploiting their prejudices, and giving those ideas superficial value. It explains what happened in the decade leading up to the war, when reactionary imperialism grew alongside illusions of bourgeois democracy, with all its reformist and pacifist tendencies. 

Big capitalists manipulated the petty bourgeoisie to serve the goals of imperialism, using the group’s own biases against them.

References

  • Aristophanes. (2002). Lysistrata (J. Henderson, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 411 BCE)
  • Ceadel, M. (1987). Thinking about War and Peace. Oxford University Press.
  • Gandhi, M. (2001). The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas (L. Fischer, Ed.). Vintage Books.
  • Holmes, R. L. (1989). On War and Morality. Princeton University Press.
  • Jain, M. (2001). Jainism: The World of Conquerors (Vol. 1). Sussex Academic Press.
  • Jaurès, J. (1915). Studies in Socialism (M. K. Mitchell, Trans.). G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
  • Norman, R. (1995). Ethics, Killing, and War. Cambridge University Press.
  • Quaker Tapestry Trust. (2005). The Story of the Quakers. Quaker Tapestry Publications.
  • Ryan, C. (2009). The Chickenhawk Syndrome: War, Sacrifice, and Personal Responsibility. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  • Te Whiti o Rongomai. (n.d.). Historical Accounts of Peaceful Resistance. In New Zealand history. Ministry for Culture and Heritage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *