Peace is a fight, not a right

Gandhi made great strides towards integrating non-violence into the act of protest.

Dave Lorne

The Silhouette

It is difficult to observe how war is not opposed to peace, and it is common to understand the binary as anything but lead and gold. The warmonger is interested in conflict, but the capable war-worker may well be aiming at the exact other, conflict resolution and swift transition into peaceable relations. The more fiercely an invasion opposition is moved against and funneled into less dangerous channels, the more quickly peace time arrives.

This may make for brief furious efforts rather than long, slow and fearful periods intermittent with irregular violences. An intelligent and enthused soldier-guerilla hopes for a soon return to stable conditions rather than extended warfare. The aim is opposed to that of the peacenik, who may unconsciously wish war extension by failure to apply concrete mind to the problem, as well as that of the unpracticed war worker, who forces incompetent extension of wartime events.

The only concession to this point is whether or not war is necessary at all.  If it is imperative for any reason, such as astronomical forces, overpopulation, excessive sexual or hate crime, disease control, or divine interest, then the capable warrior is the next best thing beside peace time honorifics. This soldier may well be such an honorific anyway, given their disposition to defend, protect, aid or enact.

Those who lend practical support to the capable guerilla also push for peace time quietly and quickly. The burdensome individual is the incapable soldier, the invader and the ignorant, stubborn or not. This soldier is only superfluous if war is in no way ever necessary, if it is never just to defend territory, family, peers or professions.  Even in this case, such a competent worker is likely adaptive to enacting the events occurring during peaceable relation times and ensuring level societal function.

A second binary opposition pertains to the question of the manner of meeting violence. Frantz Fanon suggested meeting violence with active violence, to mirror and hate the attack. Mohandas Gandhi requires the exact opposite of this, meeting the violent attack with passive resistance.

This apparent binary leads to two intermediary processes useful for the wise guerilla and the markedly invested defender of pacifism. The first is active resistance in which a direct movement forward is made toward an adversary, but then violence is resisted by firm disavowal of the resulting attack upon the being. A violent offender is thus called upon, but not attacked back until apprehended by other authorized individuals. The second process is passive violence in which violent reactions are made toward active violences until they are ceased, such as enacting violence upon attackers only, and never oneself moving toward to attack; violence only upon the current attacker.

Finally it is noble to note that there are many means of subduing which are apparently non-violent in action but effective in withholding, detaining or even eradicating any violent offender. At the worst is asphyxiation, which is barely violent but not mutilating if not in conjunction with any other crime. Other non-violent tactics include poisoning, repositioning resources, hands-off hazing rituals and hate crime approaches, un-enforced social isolation, shaming and disapproval tactics, false allegations, and death-trapping of personal interests such as stealing art, hobby or cherished possessions. Waiting is sometimes a strong defense; the kickback golden rule suggests that violences enacted upon oneself are returned to the offender in multiplicity, although perhaps much later.

Leo Tolstoy reminded us heavily to never do anything non-violent, influencing Gandhi personally with ideals of resistance and vegetarianism. He nevertheless pronounces strength and capability as ideal, and attacks pacifists for not having enough courage and strength.