Well, I personally don't see how beating other peoples faces in gains anything...

Not sure if you would qualify these as arguments...they are actually examples:

Ghandi
Tiananmen square

or what about a hunger strike? I'm sure some have worked.

Have you heard any arguments that disagree with yours that make sense?

Ceaser Chavez

Pacifism works about as well as time outs do

ghandi is a terrible example.

Tiananmen square is a ctyally a great example. I wonder why pacifists dont use that more often.

but I'm talking about pacifism. dogmatic pacifism as a strategy not a tactic.
non-violence as a tactic can sometimes be brilliant, and successful. tiananmen square for example.
I want to hear reasoning for non-violence as a strategy not a tactic.

I've come to the thought that non-violent actions are just another tool... Other than out and out genocide all war and all politics is based on the goal of changing other people's minds. It can simply be changing people's minds about their will to resist by violent means or it can be changing their minds about their ideals/goals/assumptions/allies/enemies... by debate or a demonstration of will or a "disarming" show of good-will wherein a cycle of violence is broken by a wronged party choosing not to react violently. One can believe in a just war (as I do) and still believe that non-violence as a strategy is valid in many situations. ...even most situations. If war is mostly a battle for the hearts and minds than clearly non-violence has a significant role.

There are those who would support pacifism on principal - regardless of outcome - on moral grounds. Since your question seems to be one of pragmatics, I believe that there is no way to connect the two. Principal and pragmatics are two completely separate and unrelated reasons for action. There are some that almost on faith believe that the two are connected... that to always rely on principal is indeed, in the long run, the pragmatic way to go. Ghandi would be an example of someone who thought that way. Most of us don't have that much faith and when wronged enough we will retreat into violent means such as "just wars" to get what we are after.

Sicarius, you are asking for an argument for non-violence as a strategy... I think that the only argument for that rests on: 1) a long-term view - where you want eventual results... that are also transformative, rather than forcing cooperation through fear - which is always temporary, 2) a faith in the essential goodness of mankind... if mankind is not good, there is no point in arguing to that goodness with non-violence.

Pacifism is advisable if you are going to loose any war. People tend to object to the violent treatment of people who are totally non-violent, and so you can win the majority support and so perhaps gain a victory by an alternative means.

Jesus as he is represented in the Bible was a pacifist... and embraced pacifism as a strategy. Ghandi and MLK, Jr. also embraced pacifism as a strategy. As it turns out, all three got killed and some of their goals were never realized... on the other hand, in many ways each was wildly successful.

Another thought: Consider a marriage. If non-violence is only a tactic... to be abandoned if one doesn't get their way, obviously the marriage is headed for disaster. A marriage generally rests on pacifism as a strategy... one will continually turn the other cheek until they succeed or give up - violence is simply not part of the marriage tool box.

This may be a good time to drop this quote as a testament to who really wants war:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

The common man wants peace.

You guys forgot Ceaser Chavez...

And Jesus kicks butt in Revalation anyway so hes technically not a pacifist. Not to mention when he was in the temple flipping tables and knocking stuff everywhere.

Before gunpowder wars killed the weakest ones and the strongest survived.

ghandi and MLK would have never succeeded in their goals if it werent for others who were not pacifists. what is martin luther king without malcom X or the black panthers?

and jesus. well I dont want to get into that I dont want to turn this into a religious debate.

if anyone can show me one historical movement that accomplished its goals through only pacifism then I think I'll become pacifist. good luck with that though.

dexter I agree completely when you say that non-violent actions are just another tool.
on eof many tools. pacifists limit themselves.
if you had to rebuild an engine you wouldnt say. well I'm going to use a phillips screwdriver and a hammer, and those are the only tools I will use.

what I want to hear is a pacifist defend their views.
otherwise it'll just be all of us agreeing with each other. which is nice too but you know

I think that pacifism is faith-based. And therefore is immune from debate.

For once I have to agree with Sicarius. Ghandi would not have faired well against the Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

Eclesiates says "To everything there is a season, a time to every purpose under heaven." This explains Jesus' clearing the temple. But what people fail to notice is the same man who got medieval on the tables (but not on individuals, you will not) then sat down and began to teach to the same people he had just chastised. I would argue that his actions wern't violent in that he never, intentionally or unintentionally, harmed a person when he cleansed the temple of the sin, not the sinners.

@Dexter.Morgan - Re:Marriage. I do what she wants *before* she asks me to. And then I get well and truly laid for my troubles. This form of Pacifism has its own rewards. Causing trouble, strife and disharmony in a marriage doesn't seem to have any rewards at all.

I never expected Sicarius to start a thread like this.

Sicarius +1, for at least pretending to give a crap about people who have completely opposite beliefs.

"A marriage generally rests on pacifism as a strategy... one will continually turn the other cheek until they succeed or give up - violence is simply not part of the marriage tool box."

Hmmmm. But it is in the tool box. Bad tool, but is present there.Some 1/3 of marriages include some kind of serious violence. I know. I'm a psychologist who performs treatments of domestic violence perpetrators :)

Spartans versus Athenians.

'nuff said.

Adler, that's probably true to some extent especially when extended to our more thorough weapons of war... but I would say gunpowder favours a good eye, good hustle, and good teamwork.

I really think Sicarius just wanted to flex the arguments he learned in that book he was recommending us earlier. I don't think he really believes anyone can come up with a convincing argument and just wants the opportunity to make the opposite case should someone come along and say they support pacifism. =)

That said, I am not a pacifist. There are numerous opportunities where non-violence is the more effective and less costly and these are situations in which non-violence should clearly be used. However, sometimes violence just gets the job done... In some cases neither will work and you'll probably have to try more subversive techniques to try to sway the moral zeitgeist in favor of your cause.

That said, Sicarius, just because violence is sometimes necessary doesn't mean that the anarchy movement is justified in using violence... The real question you need to ask is if organizing violent, vandalizing protests or setting up bombs will really get you what you want. Perhaps you'd gain more supporters if you took a more mainstream and less violent approach to convincing people...

Like barack obama did

Sicarius:

All one man can ever do is make his own choice, forge his own path. And sometimes, the choices a person makes, and the ideas behind them can spread like wildfire, affecting everyone they touch. Look at Malcolm X in his later life, Mother Theresa, Ghandi. I challenge you to convince me that they were limiting themselves...

Also, can you give any examples of historical movements that have been successful using ONLY violence? No, of course not.

Pacifism should be seen in the context of the world as a whole. Any successful movement/country/whatever needs different kinds of people to succeed. Pacifists, Military men, Spiritual leaders, Sociopaths, Artists, Scientists, and everything else... Everyone and everything has its place. We all keep each other in balance.

I am a pacifist. But this applies only to me and I won't talk about other people, movements (be they just or not), and certainly not the world as a whole. In my life, and for my own purposes, I am thoroughly convinced that violence does not have a place. The reason is that nothing is worth the grave sin that I would forever have to carry on my head should I, for whatever reason, kill someone. Violence short of killing is in a grey zone, but I still denounce it.

Jerkface said : In my life, and for my own purposes, I am thoroughly convinced that violence does not have a place.

Violence always has a place in ones life. For many of us, it may be a last resort, but to dismiss violence as a possible solution to an encounter is foolish. On a basic level, everyone has the right to defend themselves. If a person enters your home for the purpose of harming you or your family, you'll
use whatever force is neccessary to stop that from happening.
Including taking a life if need be.

I don't believe anyone can honestly say that they are so against violence that nothing, absolutely nothing, would induce
them to kill another human being.

It's never a good thing to intentionally harm someone for personal gains. However, in the spirit of realism, sometimes it is very necessary to achieve a noble end. Therefore, both violence and pacifism should be employed in moderation and only when appropriate.

Violence is something to be used when diplomacy fails.

There can be little diplomacy if there's no threat of violence as an option (even if it is the last option).

I still disagree. Although I have the right to use violence (by the judgment of others), my ethics are such that I'd rather not use it. I'd sooner die than kill. On the other hand, I cannot tell you what I would do in the heat of the moment, were some bad situation to arise; I might make a regrettable mistake. But from here on my comfortable couch, that is where I stand... er, sit.