|
In response to Lebell, coordination and organisation is a much more powerful force than violence. Coordinated violence is of course more powerful than either. For every Napoleon or Wellington (who by the way were far better organisers than they were fighters) there is a Ghandi or a Jesus, or a Malcolm X. If man had never discovered how to cooperate, and look past his innate behaviours, we would still be fighting over bananas in the jungle. Yes, survival of the fittest prevails, but it is a far more economical, far more rational, and a species has far better chances for survival if they are able to evolve beyond force and control the far more subtle, and powerful forces that can only come from non-violent and cooperative behaviours.
Yes, we have to accept our violent past, and yes, we all have a breaking point at which we revert to our baser instincts. But isn't it more advantageous to us as a species, and even as individuals to at least try and push that breaking point as far as possible?
With the invention of technology, it is unsustainable to advocate violence. To succeed in a state of open conflict, all one has to do is become more ruthless than the next guy. It would be a simple matter to slaughter people, either through open conventional violence, or through stealth, surprise, poison or suicide bombing. Is that what we want?
It isn't what I want.
Yes it's idealistic to advocate pacifism, some people argue the morality of it - I am arguing that having the strength and the courage to turn the other cheek and allow a route for reconciliation is a far more powerful tool than rushing in to floor the other guy.
In agreement with Lebell, violence should always be the last resort, once all other avenues have been attempted.
|