I remember the first time I heard the word "pacifist". A neighbor guy from a very pious family refused to join the army, because. According to religious canons, it is forbidden to pick up weapons, and even more so to use them. This caused bewilderment and irritation among those around him, and the nickname "pacifist" was firmly entrenched behind him.
At the time, I didn't really understand the meaning of the word. And over time, I found out that literally “pacifism” is translated as “I make peace”. That pacifists are people who condemn all war, deny the very possibility of war. And it doesn't matter which ones, even liberation ones. They believe in the possibility of preventing wars through persuasion and peaceful demonstrations. Those. there is nothing shameful, nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary, I was surprised that people who survived such a terrible World War II do not take the side of this guy.
Interestingly, the pacifist movement first emerged in Britain and the United States after the Napoleonic Wars and gradually became widespread. But the term did not yet exist. It was first proposed by the French peace activist Émile Arnault . In 1901, the 10th World Peace Congress was held in Glasgow, where this term was proposed to designate an ideology that condemns all types of wars. At the international congresses of pacifists, proposals were considered to prohibit wars, to carry out general disarmament, and to resolve disputes that arise between states in international arbitration courts. The Communists, on the contrary, believed that pacifism distracted the masses from the active struggle against imperialism.
After World War II, the balance of power on the world stage outweighed in favor of socialism and the involvement in the struggle for peace of broad sections of the population in various countries. Here is the explanation. Everything is dictated by the policy of the state and its goals.
The 14th Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi , John Lennon and Martin Luther King were staunch pacifists. They condemned all kinds of wars, urged to maintain peace between peoples and thus change the life of mankind for the better.
They also used non-violent tactics. Its basis was the idea that it is impossible to consider a manifestation of the evil of a person who commits this evil. It is important to see a person with a conscience in him. If violent actions are not responded to, then the chain of evil will break. Proving their case, non-violent advocates justified pain and suffering. This is much more difficult to accept. Why should violence go unpunished?
But there is also a bit of common sense in their reasoning. They identified violence as one of the fundamental problems of humanity, arising out of anger and fear. The weapon itself does not shoot, and the murders are committed by people possessed by hatred. Therefore, a pacifist can be called someone who controls emotions and restrains destructive impulses. It turns out that a person must prevent hatred, anger, anger and instead cultivate opposite feelings in himself - tolerance, forgiveness, generosity, kindness and care.
The idea of non-violence and non-resistance to evil, at first glance, is very good. It emphasizes the value of life in general. But is it possible to be a pacifist in a world full of injustice and violence? Maybe pacifists are hopeless idealists who are not needed at the present stage? This ideology has always had, and today there are opponents who bring a number of arguments against pacifism.
Humanity can no longer imagine itself without wars and armed conflicts. Even banal everyday problems are solved by violence. Pacifism disappeared somewhere , dissolved in squabbles, clarifications, mutual hatred. Nobody writes about it anymore. Far in the past are Ernest Hemingway , Romain Rolland, Henri Barbusse , John Dos Passos , Upton Sinclair . No Tolstoy and Yevtushenko.
But new ones appeared, glorifying weapons, glorifying war. New heroes appear, which modern boys look up to. At best, these are computer heroes and superheroes . And the war games have not gone away.
The world does not stand still. It is constantly evolving, and faster and faster. Man makes breakthroughs in medicine, space, creates artificial intelligence. But at the same time, military equipment is also being improved, which today looks like some kind of monsters. And there are no leaders who could stop this madness.
First, we need to decide what is the truth, the goal of the world, its existence, and see the connection with this goal of every phenomenon, every object and person. Perhaps, by destroying something or someone, even somehow changing, we bring irreparable damage to the world?
A very important topic, but how to return such a movement to the world, when young people are brought up on action films, crime films and programs, the main channels show programs of family showdowns, what is generally unacceptable to take out to the public and shake dirty laundry? Previously, there were no concepts of blockbusters and horror films, and now such cartoons are produced and shown on children's channels and teach children to violence, vampirism, lies and theft. All sorts of sorceresses earn money and bring in income, and this is considered the norm in our sick society. Maybe that's why there are no people like Gandhi in the whole world?
Yes, it’s impossible to watch TV now: some super heroes are worth something, who destroy everything around. Murders, scenes of human violence, blood. And this is considered the norm.