Peace, Ideal World and Struggle with the Real

  February 20, 2021   Read time 1 min
Peace, Ideal World and Struggle with the Real
Peace is thought to be the basis of an ideal world and a pacifist in the strict sense of the word is deemed to be the person who defies all types of conflicts. Nevertheless, absence of conflict is neither desirable nor fits the realities on the ground. Reality requires a deeper understanding if we seek to have a much more dependable picture of life

In the years after World War I there was much recrimination and debate about the meaning of pacifism. The purists who had opposed the march to war claimed the term for themselves. They narrowed its definition to the unconditional rejection of war in all its forms. As revulsion at the horrific bloodletting of the war deepened, a growing number of people pledged never again to participate in or support war. These“pacifists” played a major role in the peace movement of the interwar era, which grew to unprecedented scale. Internationalists remained an important force, especially in Britain, where the LNU attracted widespread public support, but the influence of those who rejected war under all circumstances was substantial. The restrictive meaning of pacifism became the accepted standard and was adopted by A. C. F. Beales in his influential 1931 volume, The History of Peace. Thereafter it became the standard in both scholarly and popular discourse. This narrow definition of pacifism left most of the peace community out in the cold. Many of those who considered themselves pacifist were uncomfortable with the absolutist stand. As the menace of fascism mounted pacifism became increasingly marginalized and associated with isolationism. The term sank into disrepute and was largely abandoned, even by those who considered themselves advocates of peace. Many peace supporters, especially the internationalists, urged vigorous action to confront aggression. Some, such as Albert Einstein, tried to redefine pacifism to include rearmament and collective military resistance against Hitler. Others adopted a “peace with justice” perspective, arguing that the prevention of war depended on resolving political and economic grievances. The majority of peace advocates found themselves in a state of confusion and uncertainty. They were part of a broad social movement amorphously defined as for peace, but they lacked a coherent program for preventing the impending war and had no commonly accepted “ism” to describe the prevailing philosophy.


  Comments
Write your comment