• BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    All of human political activity boils down to violence. If pacifism were a legitimate strategy then we wouldn’t be in our current situation.

    • Bigfoot@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I didn’t say anything about pacifism, but I also disagree with your proposition equating violence and politics. Violence is a breakdown of politics. Politics, almost definitionally, is how a people settle disputes without violence.

      Politics is how how decisions are made in groups. If one person or group is forcing their will upon others, then no decision or compromise between the parties can be said to have been made freely. And therefore it cannot be truthfully described as following a political process.

        • Bigfoot@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          It is, but diplomacy refers to disputes between peoples. Politics refers to disputes within a people.

      • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Pacifism is an ideology centered on political change through nonviolence. Maybe you didn’t explicitly say it, but you might as well have. Can you provide a source on violence being a result of political breakdown and not intrinsic to politics itself? How do current regimes uphold their power?

        Politics is, more or less, how decisions are made in groups. Making a decision doesn’t preclude violence. Wars are political and their entire point is violence. Colonialism was foundational to the politics of the last 3+ centuries and it was incredibly violent. Besides vibes, what evidence do you have to support the claim that politics aren’t violent?