Response to Orwell's attack on Pacifism
This statement was written in a time when Orwell's country of origin, namely the United Kingdom, was under threat of Nazi invasion., however, one can replace that particular foe with a contemporary, equivalent, for example, Islamic, anti-West terrorism at the time of writing.
In a time when one point of view was fighting another, an opinion such as that of the Pacifist will be regarded by the nation in which one resides as inherently opposed to the interests of that nation and thus supporting that of the enemy. This leads to such statements as "You're either with us or against us".
However, the belief that one should not go to war is an objective perspective to the view "I support nation A" or "I support nation B". It is so because it is an ideology that is separate to that of nationhood and is not intrinsically opposed to any one nation. Nor, indeed, are most of its interpretations opposed to the concept of nationhood itself, though it can be argued that nationhood leads to war, in a coherent pacifism, I know of no major strand of pacifism that does this so it cannot be used in this instance. It is an opinion separate to that of "Britishness", or indeed of any nation embroiled in a conflict.
Consider a triangle of apexes a, b and c. Where a and b are at war, and a member of c resides in nation a, he will be regarded as being friendly to nation b because he is neutral. On the simplistic line between between a and b, c is in the middle, but as c is independent, objectively it is neither necessarily for or against either or the other two positions. Though it is possible for a pacifist to be a lover of freedom on top of peace, pacifism itself does not dictate national allegiance. The Pacifist will be regarded as friendly with the enemy by ones warring nation of course, but that is a view dictated by that nations own subjectivity and inability to emulate the point of view of anyone objective, let alone their enemy. The statement: "Objectively, the pacifist is pro-[enemy]", is false. It is a mere subjective observation that bears no relation to reality.
Don't get me wrong, I respect Orwell as a writer and as an anti-totalitarian, but his strawman really stinks, and has been used for decades to associate pacifists with "the enemy", perhaps illustrated most famously by Hermann Goerings Nuremberg quote in 1946:
It's good to be back!
"Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi." - Orwell
In a time when one point of view was fighting another, an opinion such as that of the Pacifist will be regarded by the nation in which one resides as inherently opposed to the interests of that nation and thus supporting that of the enemy. This leads to such statements as "You're either with us or against us".
However, the belief that one should not go to war is an objective perspective to the view "I support nation A" or "I support nation B". It is so because it is an ideology that is separate to that of nationhood and is not intrinsically opposed to any one nation. Nor, indeed, are most of its interpretations opposed to the concept of nationhood itself, though it can be argued that nationhood leads to war, in a coherent pacifism, I know of no major strand of pacifism that does this so it cannot be used in this instance. It is an opinion separate to that of "Britishness", or indeed of any nation embroiled in a conflict.
Consider a triangle of apexes a, b and c. Where a and b are at war, and a member of c resides in nation a, he will be regarded as being friendly to nation b because he is neutral. On the simplistic line between between a and b, c is in the middle, but as c is independent, objectively it is neither necessarily for or against either or the other two positions. Though it is possible for a pacifist to be a lover of freedom on top of peace, pacifism itself does not dictate national allegiance. The Pacifist will be regarded as friendly with the enemy by ones warring nation of course, but that is a view dictated by that nations own subjectivity and inability to emulate the point of view of anyone objective, let alone their enemy. The statement: "Objectively, the pacifist is pro-[enemy]", is false. It is a mere subjective observation that bears no relation to reality.
Don't get me wrong, I respect Orwell as a writer and as an anti-totalitarian, but his strawman really stinks, and has been used for decades to associate pacifists with "the enemy", perhaps illustrated most famously by Hermann Goerings Nuremberg quote in 1946:
Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. 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 greater danger.
Comment