Political Ideologies: Pacifism

For pacifism one agrees tipologia of opinion, in ideological kind, founded on the conviction that the conflicts between various be communities(, etnie, etc.) or between various factions to the inside of the same community, they must be resolved without to resort to the military crash.
Therefore, the refusal, for most categorical, expressed from the supporters of the pacifism regards the war, that is that organized litigation between etnie or states or cultures, lead with the force, for economic reasons, acquisition of territory, obtaining of superiority or dominion, or other reasons, and that it comes fought from various individuals from those who decide it, and - for the great part - endured from still various persons. On all the other shapes of violence it would have to stop case for case, with the risk to generalize and therefore to banalize the concept. In so far as, it is well to avoid to carry out an any parallel between the interpersonal situations of war and conflicts, aspect, this, rather misleading within the arguments on the opportunities of the several strategies of conflict resolution. The only found likeness between a war conflict and an interpersonal one resides in the ascertainment that - as in international politics - the greater part of the interpersonal conflicts is not resolved at all with the violence, but in pacific ways (to pact to accept to consider the threats pacific means).
In other words, not only the pacifist thinks that the peace is a better option from the point of view moral: egli/ella he thinks that it he is also functional, that is - banally - that convene more, if the objective is to resolve a conflict.
An other element important to consider is the variety and the degree of effectiveness of the pacifist strategies of fight: it is not rare opinion that, to part celebre the example of Gandhi, not is important examples of efficient pacifism. In truth, the picture is very different, and touches circumstances and contexts many several for times and ways (some scattered examples:
During II the World war, to the next day of the German occupation of Norway, the schools opposed not violent resistance to the nazis. The Germans imposed they didactic charter in 1941: teaching struck, supports to you from parents, pupils and from the churches. More than thousands teaching they were it arrests and it sendes to you to you in the concentration camps, in the north of the country. Hundreds were tortured, but least they will yield. In the 1942 it arrests to it to you came rilasciati and that same autumn the schools reopened without the nazi programs.
In Denmark, always during nazism, when the racial laws were proclamate, all the people it was opposed. When the order was given to write "Jude" on the display windows of the Hebrew storees, all the traders - also the not Hebrew ones - wrote. When it was sets up the yellow star to the Hebrew, all the population, to begin from the king, made equally. To the end, Denmark can boast the percentage and the number of Hebrew deports to you in the lower concentration camps of II the world war.
During XIX the century, inHungary dominated fromAustria, the churches protestants endured a hard repression. To the processes against bishops and shepherds it arrests, the students made solidarity manifestations to you, in total Hush and dressed of black. The entire people made nonviolent resistance for independence of the country. They were boycotts the products to you Austrians; nobody paid the taxes. In 1866, the emperor Francisco Giuseppe introduced the military conscription for the war against the Prussia: nobody was introduced. In 1867, Hungary obtained independence.
Always in XIX the century, Norway obtained independence from Sweden with exclusively not violent means, above all for the fundamental mediation of subsequently the Prize Nobel Fridtjof Nansen.
The cited examples belong to situations substantially already hasty, that the not ago justice to the pacifism idea therefore as would go understanding, that it adds, to the attempt to resolve conflicts already starts to you, two main contexts:
Those in which not violent means (diplomacy, manifestations, deal and quant' other to you) have avoided ' in via preventiva' that a situation fell. This portion of events goes considered the greater force of the pacifism, even if less eclatante;
those in which the use of the war the example Israel - Palestine has been demonstrated incapable to resolve the conflict( are sin too much paradigmatico), putting more than other to knot the complex net of economic interests that wheel around the war industry.
The tension between supporters of the peace and supporters of the armed conflict today is replaced from a shape of apparently more tenuous contrast, but in truth much similar one. To prettamente dialectic level, the old figure of ' guerrafondaio' is probably passing to the end of the Second World war, replaced from that thinnest one of the supporter of the badly necessary one, that is of who it thinks that determined situations they catch up a such state of deterioration from painfully being able to be resolved () only with an armed conflict. The contesa intellectual it today seems to carry out itself on this land.