Introduction to Non-Violence

n the one hand he may be faced with the imminent triumph of some almost insufferable evil; on the other,

this lesser evil to oppose them is entirely justified. John Lewis bases his entire Case Against Pacifism upon this latter assumption, and says that in such a conflict of values, pacifists "continue to be pacifists either because there is no serious threat, or because they do not expect to los

n arguments on the subject."[21] This means that our problem of considering the place of violence and non-violence in human life is not one of purely objective science, since the attitudes and beliefs

ry human personality, will on occasion use violence as a means to attempt the achievement of their goals. Since their attitude is diffe

TNO

er's, 1932). See especially his consideration of coercion and persuasi

ccasionally right and necessary to inflict injurious coercion on human beings, in order to p

Lewis

ionary

of life and liberty;" or again, "It [Anarchism] means that men are brothers, and that they should live like brothers, in peace and harmony."[23] But to create this ideal society the Anarchi

nt of taking life.... Human life is, indeed, sacred and inviolate. But the killing of a tyrant, of an enemy of the People, is in no way to be c

he revolution itself by military means would fail because "government and capital are too well organized in a military way for the workers to cope with them." But, says Berkman, when the success of the revolution becomes apparent, the opposition will use violent means to suppress it. At that moment the people are justified in using violence themselves to protect it. Berkman believes that the

TNO

stian Pacifism Re

ifferent assumptions concerning such things as the aggressive nature of man is well brought out in the study of three New Guinea tr

s Communist Anarchism? (New Yo

s of an Anarchist (New York: Mother E

nist Anarchism, 217

am Li

with no touch of hatred toward those whom the armies of which he was Commander-in-Chief were destroying. He expressed his feeling

e on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne battle, and for his w

urch a

can become what they ought to be." In March, 1942, American Protestant leaders at Delaware, Ohio, asserted: "We believe it is the purpose of God to create a world-wide community in Jesus Christ, transcending nation, race and class."[26] Yet the majority of the men who drew up these two statements were supporting the wa

injustice toward enemies when the war is done. The inspiring words of Lincoln were followed by the orgy of radical reconstruction in the South. T

ether violence without hate can lo

TNO

From Victory to Peace (Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1943). For a statement of a point of view similar to the one we a

self violence to the welfare of the brethren. But no Christian moralist worth mentioning has ever regarded war per se as other than monstrous, or hoped that by the use of violence anything more could be accomplished than the frustration of a temporaril