kropotkhristian:

Nah, you’re good. There is a lot of criticism of pacifism on the left, but I honestly think that most leftists are either misunderstanding pacifism or misrepresenting it. I’m a pacifist for religious reasons, but to me, the most important part of this is that I fundamentally don’t think it is even possible to BE a pacifist and NOT an anarchist. In other words - if being a pacifist means rejecting all forms of violence, that must include rejecting all forms of coercion - because coercion is violence - and so it leads one to anarchism. The state is the most violent apparatus known to human history. Pacifism necessitates anarchism.

As far as the “protecting the ruling class” criticism goes, I think this criticism is often valid, especially when pacifists start complaining about the times when the oppressed use violence to unshackle themselves. This is just bad pacifism. It is ignoring the systemic violence that led to the oppressed rising up in the first place. I think pacifism should always be viewed through the lens “preferential option for the poor” - in other words, when violence happens, you should always speak out against the oppressor and their use of violence, never the oppressed.

But pacifism has actually had a super long history on the left. You can read some more about it here. I would also recommend the work of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement.