Pacifism As Pathology
Pacifism as Pathology, Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America — Ward Churchill, Michael Ryan PM Press 2017
“Nonviolence is a tactical question, not a strategic one.”
This book takes on pacifism as a political philosophy. Some of it repeats well known and correct leftist criticisms of pacifism. The main one is that Pacifism doesn’t work to bring about fundamental change. This is especially true for the transformation of capitalism into socialism. The ruling class will not give up its wealth and power through pressure or legislation. It will have to have its wealth and power taken from it physically. Since the ruling class will use force to defend its position, force will be necessary for those who want to create a new system. The authors of course accept the idea that non-violent struggle can be useful at various points. What they reject is adopting non-violence as a principle instead of a tactic.
As Ed Mead says in the Preface, “Those who denounce the use of political violence as a matter of principle, who advocate non-violence as a strategy for progress, are wrong. Nonviolence is a tactical question, not a strategic one.”(9)
Or as Dylan Rodriguez puts it in the Foreword “Few things are more repulsive than the curtailing of uprising political vistas for the sake of fulfilling the self-righteous moral prescriptions of those who would protect the bodies and lives of the dominant.”(19)
The authors lay out a fundamental problem with pacifist strategy:
“ …for survival itself, any nonviolent confrontation of state power must ultimately depend either on the state refraining from unleashing some real measure of its potential violence or the active presence of some countervailing violence of precisely the sort pacifism professes to reject as a political option.”(69)
Backing up this point is the little known cooperation of Martin Luther King Jr. with the Deacons of Defense, an armed Black group that defended Civil Rights demonstrations.
“…there simply has never been a revolution, or even a substantial social reorganization, brought into being on the basis of the principles of pacifism. In every instance, violence has been an integral requirement of the process of transforming the state.” (70)
Unfortunately, Churchill is so supportive of armed struggle that he denies the impact of the mass anti-war movement on ending the Vietnam war. ( 87) . In reality, a big factor in the end of the war was the disintegration of the U.S. military in Vietnam. This in turn was facilitated by the large civilian anti-war movement. Nor was that movement completely pacifist.
Pacifists for Guerilla Warfare?
One interesting point the author makes is that often pacifists in the U.S. support armed struggle in the Global South. He feels this is based on the armed movements in the South forcing the governments in the Global North to grant concessions to their populations. This is certainly questionable. What it does show is the illusions that pacifists in the North have about their own states. They believe these states are benign and democratic and thus amenable to nonviolent protest where dictatorial states in the Global South are not. (90)
Is Pacifism a Pathology?
“Pacifism fits nicely with this class collaborationist approach”
Churchill explains and then assumes this analysis. However, he also sees pacifism as so obviously flawed that its acceptance can only be based on pathology. Because of this, he lays out a psychological program to break pacifists from their pathology(105). One problem with the author’s proposal is that the pacifists would have to recognize that they have a pathology and voluntarily undergo treatment! To put it mildly, this is unlikely.
The other problem with this proposal is that it over-emphasizes the psychological basis of pacifism. Pacifism has a material root. In other parts of the book Churchill admits this.(101)(103) He attributes it to middle class people in the Global North. He is definitely onto something with this critique. The true middle class is based on small productive property holders, managers, independent professionals etc. They are not directly exploited wage workers but neither are they large capitalists employing labor. As such they are caught between the two major classes in society. From that position, they are prone to want to overcome and reconcile class conflict. Instead of winning a victory over the bosses as workers try to do in strikes, they want to convince authorities to be moral. They want to “Speak Truth to Power” instead of seeking to take power away from the powerful or at least weaken the power of bosses and politicians. Pacifism fits nicely with this class collaborationist approach. Civil disobedience is aimed at moral suasion. As Martin Luther King Jr. put it “Rivers of blood must flow, but they must be our blood.”
https://medium.com/@sleigh1917/speak-truth-to-power-28636308cc27
Unfortunately, middle class rooted politics like pacifism are not confined to the middle class. In the U.S. 75% of the population is working class. This class only survives by selling its ability to work to employers. Its living standard relies on struggling for better wages and conditions. This sometimes means physical force and violence. Class struggle is inherent in capitalism. Too often middle class-based ideology influences the economic and social movements of workers and the poor. Reformism which flows out of class collaboration is a fundamental root of pacifism. The ruling class promotes class collaboration and campaigns for it ideologically in the media, church and education system.
“ ..the state , together with collaborating corporations and private foundations, goes to great lengths including funding of ‘oppositional’ enterprises… to convince the oppressed that the remedy to their oppression resides within the oppressive system itself.”(34)
The roots of pacifism are primarily economic and political, not psychological. Intense class struggle is often difficult and dangerous. Limiting struggle to pacifist tactics may be ineffective but it can seem safter. Understanding the economic and political basis of pacifism is more optimistic than seeing it as rooted in pathology. People actually committed to victory can be won to more militant tactics in struggle. Not all pacifists have to go through psychoanalysis to overcome their “pathology”!
Third Worldism
“Marxism on the other hand is based on “the self-emancipation of the working class”.
The authors come from a Third-Worldist perspective and therefore lump “well-off” U.S. workers in with the middle class. Churchill’s response to 9/11 made this clear. He described those killed in the Twin Towers this way. “ True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed the technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire.” Though he tried to clarify later, his initial response did not exempt janitors, food service workers etc. from this critique.
Churchill seems to believe that pacifism comes from people in the U.S. defending their privileges over the victims of imperialism in the Global South. In fact, the vast majority of people in the Global North are also victims of the capitalist system. They are exploited and oppressed. They die in its wars. They suffer its austerity and environmental degradation.
The authors make too stark a contrast between pacifism and “armed struggle”. The latter usually means guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare is based on small numbers overthrowing the state FOR the people rather than mass movements OF the people. This is the core of Maoism, Castroism etc. Marxism on the other hand is based on “the self-emancipation of the working class”. Fundamental transformation of society requires the abolition of capitalism. This in turn requires the democratization of relations of production and all social relations. This can only be accomplished by those engaged in those relations of production. As Rosa Luxemburg put it, “Where the chains of capitalism are forged, there they must be broken.”
https://firebrand.red/2024/11/how-should-marxists-relate-to-maoism/
Armed struggle in the broadest sense will definitely be part of the repertoire of a successful revolutionary socialist movement. Such a movement will not be limited by the principle of pacifism. It will also not make a fetish of “armed struggle” in the guerilla sense.
This book, is an interesting and useful attack on the principle of pacifism. It is however limited by some of its political assumptions.
