On Selective Pacifism & other Oddities was Re: [PEN-L:20020]

[Carrol Cox]

Over on PEN-L Michael has (I think sensibly) indicated that this thread
has lost its usefulness there, but it raised a number of questions I
thought worth pursuing on a list not focused (as Michael keeps hoping
PEN-L will be) on economics. In an earlier post in the thread I
indicated that the phrase "selective pacifism" was simply bad writing.
(Max disagreed, and he can re-express that here if he feels it useful.)
My argument is that _most_ objections to this or that war are not
pacifist objections at all: for example (to explore ancient history) it
would have made perfect since in the mid-19th century to both vigorously
oppose the Mexican War (which Grant called the most unjust war ever
fought by a large nation against a small nation, but of course Grant
didn't know about the current war) _and_ to have _supported_ with equal
vigor the War to Suppress the Insurrection of the Slave Drivers. (The
usual names, Civil War and War Between the States seem to me to distort
the nature of that war.) Pacifism or anti-Pacifism has nothing to do
with it. The phrase "Selective Pacifism" is sloppy writing, in fact I
would say intellectually corrupt, because it obscures the sharp
distinction between vicious wars fought for vicious and/or stupid
purposes and wars in defense of legitimate causes.

Carrol

Charles Brown wrote:
> 
>  Max tells the "truth"
> by Max Sawicky
> 26 November 2001
> 
> Selective pacifism reflects confusion.
> Consistent pacifism is not confused; it's just wrong.
> 
> %%%%%
> 
> CB: If you are not a selective pacifist and not a consistent pacificist, does this mean you are in some sense against peace, don't have enthusiasm to struggle for peace in any situation , always tend to favor war , what ?