Pacifism is variously defined. Some people mean it to be an abjuration of any sort of force or violence, while others have a less absolute view, thinking for instance that force in immediate concrete self-defense is acceptable, whereas planning war or using it as a political instrument is not. The opposite of this position should not be hard to figure out: it is that war _is_ an acceptable political instrument, that is, the normal politics of the State.
Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema:
> Actually, when I called pacifism and "armed struggle" (in quotes because I
> agree it's not a good term for what I mean) twins, I had in mind a
> psychological unity between the disposition towards the two political
> approaches. I recall, all too clearly, people who flipped over from a
> commitment to non-violence to what they themselves called armed struggle. In
> both cases the commitment was essentially a narcissistic moralism. For
> example, in both phases they saw their activities as acts of moral witness,
> and said things like "I cannot stand idly by......" etc.
What sort of moralism is not narcissistic? This is probably not a rhetorical question. I mean, isn't the central figure in the moral drama oneself (even if projected) and the awful presence or absence of one's goodness?