If everyone is non-violent, will Hitler types take over?

If everyone was nonviolent, Hitler-types wouldn't have much help in taking over.

If everyone was non-violent, then there wouldn't be anyone like Hitler.

Right. Thats why I said "almost everyone."

I just wonder if an approach of non-violence toward the world can work, if one has to face violent people.

Right. Thats why I said "almost everyone."

I just wonder if an approach of non-violence toward the world can work, if one has to face violent people.

Your'e dealing with a basic tenet of natural selection. If there is a trait that allows an individual to exploit a system then they should be able to increase the number of offspring they have, who will also exhibit this trait. Soon the entire population will be full of them and the 'advantage' will have effectively cancelled itself out.

You haven't set your original question correctly. The issue is not one of violence. If we had a population of 99 non-violents and one violent person, the one violent one could only use force on one person at a time. The other 98 would consciously or unconsciously do whatever it took to undermine the advantage gained to the thug. Killing everyone would not help them either as one violent person in a society of one is no advantage either.

The question is co-option. The Nazis co-opted power from a generally peaceful population, raised one person to a superior position and then turned the same population into aggressors. Your question isn't 'how does one madman take control with force'; it is 'how is violence promoted to overcome resistence to it in a non-violent population'.

Homo sapiens is not by nature non-violent. We are competitive hunters for whom killings is almost as natural as breathing. We define our territory as something greater than our reach, and then we protected it with violence against the Other. Our first tools were weapons, and our social structures are designed to give us the advantage over whatever competition arises.

For most of human history violence directed against those outside of our tribe was accepted almost as a virtue. Not to be violent generally resulted in extinction. The victors killed the adult warriors, and the male children who might later become warriors. They raped the females and enslaved all who escaped the consequences of losing. There were no "rules" of warfare other than total victory by any means whatever. That was the rule up until perhaps six thousand years ago.

One of the great advances in civilization was when the victor decided to demand perpetual tribute from the defeated rather than killing the lot. Settled agriculture and the invention of writing made total enslavement generally a better option than general slaughter. As metallurgy developed, slaves were needed to mine the ore necessesary to produce bronze weapons. Slaves weren't so much bought as captured as one group fought to dominate all the others within reasonable distance. Countless groups, tribes, cities, religions and cultures were driven to extinction and lost to history. The victors survived and grew stronger, and that in itself fostered in our ancestors the war-like spirit. The great civilizations of antiquity were all based on organized violence. The Peloponesian and Persian Wars were as important as the humanistic philosophies of Greece in setting the stage for later groups. In Asia, China and India achieved greatness not by peaceful negotiation, but by a long series of wars that subjugated one fraction of the population to another. Rome was built on the gladius, not on Roman reason.

We have come to idealize and yearn for perpetual peace, not because of any essential "goodness" so much as our deepening horror at what we have made of war. Gunpowder made the religious wars of the 15th through the 17th centuries far bloodier than was possible when the crossbow was considered the terror of the battlefield. Armies grew larger and better organized. The cost of waging war grew until it required the entire resources of a disciplined nation. That, my children, is one of the great consequences of the Napoleonic Wars at the beginning of the 19th century. Between 1815 and the dawn of the 20th century, rifled, breechloading and repeating firearms became common. Artillery progressed to the point where most could hardly conceive of war lasting very long. Then there was The Great War, The War to End all Wars. Out of the carnage came the first notions of international laws to restrict who war is waged, to try to limit the killing and destruction.

Of course, that didn't work. From the middle of the 20th century until this moment, our ability to wage war has grown. We have become much more efficient and effective in our means of killing. During the Cold War the Rules of War really did help avoid an all-out exchange of nuclear and hydrogen weapons. We and the Soviets fought that War using clients and low-intensity combat where the risk of escalation to all-out war was avoided. Imagine that, Vietnam for us and Afganistan for the Soviets was "low-intensity".

Now as we enter a new age the yearning for perpetual peace is perhaps the highest in history, but it still eludes us. Unable to face the West on the open battlefield and in accordance with the International Rules of War, the enemy has returned to the unrestricted use of violence that was common less than two hundred years ago.

The question might be, is will it be possible for Western military forces, adhering to the restraints called for by the rules of warfare they have adopted, to defeat the unrestrained strategy and tactics currently followed by terrorist groups not clearly acting on behalf of legitimate national governments?

The U.S. currently has the most powerful and professional military force in the history of the world. Our military is constrained in its use of force. If a terrorist group were to set off a terror weapon on a major American urban area, and that weapon could be traced to DPRK, Iran, or someother nation whose public antipathy to the U.S. is well-known, what would happen. Would we it be pro quid pro? Even if the national leadership was reluctant to reply in kind, would the American people demand one or more enemy cities be decimated in turn? If Pakistan unleashed a nuclear device against New Delhi, does anyone really expect that India would not rain down nuclear death on Pakistan?

The world has been at "peace" since 1945, I hope that the "peace" doesn't become even more violent in the next few years. Though many may find it difficult to believe, we are as a species further from the risk of extinction due to war today than we were fifty years ago. Not much comfort is it?

One can favor an attitude of non-violence but that doesn't always mean turn the other cheek, either.
I consider myself non-violent, but I don't have a problem with retribution. Does taht make me then violent? Not to my thinking.

I am a Nichiren Buddhist. Buddhism believes in pacifism. However, when a madman like Hitler attempts to destroy the dignity of life it is time to take to arms. Diplomacy and dialogue should always be the first step. Though many wars have been started in the name of religion, there has never been a war started in the name of Buddhism. However, in 13th century Japan, some of the samurai who defended the nation against the onlslaught of Ghengis Khan were Buddhists.

For those interested in Buddhist perspectives on war, see almost any of the Buddhist threads here. Most recently the Buddhism and War thread dealt specifically with the topic.

Buddhism and War Thread

However, I don't think Buddhist notions regarding war are "on point" with the intent of this thread. I'm sure everyone knows that I'm Buddhist, that I'm pretty conservative politically, and quite willing to support military endeavors by the United States.

Hi Asherman, as a Buddhist and as a human being I cannot possibly support the current US military endeavors. We attacked a country without provocation. We destroyed countless thousand of lives. An entires nation has been toppled by our heartless actions. This war is antithetical to Buddhism.

Iraq was not "attacked without provocation". Iraq was in major violation of the conditions on which the Gulf War was suspended. Iraq was in defiance of repeated sanctions imposed by the world for decades, and dared the world to back its sanctions with force. Iraq was overtly supporting terrorist acts against other nations. Iraq led the world to believe that it had, or intended to have, terror weapons that it was forbidden to have, and which it clearly would use without compunction against others. Iraq was one of the world's most repressive dictatorships, and was known for it's torture and murder of thousands. Force is the only thing that Saddam and Iraq respected, and so they brought this latest conflict upon themselves.

"We destroyed countless thousands of lives". Yes, war always destroys lives and property. On the other hand, the Iraq situation left unattended would have certainly also destroyed "countless thousands of lives". First, this campaign saved the lives of Iraqi's and Kurds who would have been tortured and murdered by Saddam. Saddam is no longer acting as paymaster and instigator of terrorist acts against Israel, and his intelligence services can no longer support other international terrorist initiatives. By acting forcibly, Gaddafy has abandoned his effort to acquire nuclear weapons that would endanger millions. The DPRK is less likely to regard the U.S. as a paper tiger when we caution them against building a nuclear war-chest that also would threaten world peace. The threat to Iran has diminshed, and so they can no longer reasonably excuse building nuclear weapons as a matter of national defense. Wtih Saddam out of the picture, it is possible to build a more stable region. By intervening in Iraq, it is likely that we are trading "thousands of lives" now for millions of lives in the foreseeable future.

It is true that the regime that made Iraq an outlaw nation was toppled, thereby reducing it's ability to destabilize the entire region. On the other hand, we did not act in a "heartless" manner. Quite the contrary, we have throughout taken great care to avoid as much as possible harming the innocent, or destroying property not threatening to our security. From the beginning our forces have done everything possible to restore the infrastructure and economy of Iraq ... much of which was destroyed by Saddam and his henchmen in the first place. It is our food, our medicines and specialists who have been largely responsible for making it possible for the Iraqi people to have a better life. The forces who want the region destabilized and primed for war will do everything in their power to defeat Coalition efforts to rebuild Iraq. The radicals who want to widen the violence and bring the world to a more devastating war are doing their best to defeat our efforts. They must not be unchecked.

Buddhism is about finding a means for defeating suffering. That ultimately is found not in the affairs of nations, but within ourselves. If, and when, humans as a species become enlightened then perhaps war will become a relic. It is, however, a very real part of the illusory world that we inhabit. I actually prefer Buddhist soldiers to Abrahamic soldiers as being less likely to revert to the sort of savagery so much a part of our shared heritage. It is admirable that individuals foreswear violence, but the same reluctance to embrace military affairs would be a disaster of the first order in a world where force is still the final argument.

Hi Asherman, long time no see.

I think a distinction must be made between being non-violent and being passive.
The non-violence movement was anything but passive.
You need anger, resolution and a lot of self-restraint in order to be a part of such a movement. It's not "peace & love & roses to everyone".
The key word is resistance.

Non-violents can defeat violents only if they're willing to withstand violence and are certain that their goal is both plausible and achievable.
It's not mere abhorrence of violence.

Usually non-violent means are more successfull in achieving their goals than violent ones. But it's not a rule.
And sometimes violence is a necessary evil.
WW II is the perfect example.

We must also understand that violence is not always war and weapons. Forced migration, a progrom for example, is a form of violence.

---

Buddhism is a tolerant religion. So, IMO, it's "un-Buddhist" to participate in religious wars.
Not all wars are religious, of course.

Ash, what do you think of the religious aspects some Americans have given to the war in Iraq?

Good to hear from you fbaezer. You've made a very good point about the less than peaceful foundations of most non-violent movements. Oh how I remember how emotional and militant we were back in the early sixties as we mobilized to resist the Vietnam war, and to tear down Jim Crow barriers to civil rights. In our hearts we were anything but peaceable. Some drifted into the Weather Underground and ended up with bombs and bullets anyway.

Non-violent tactics can be effective, but only within certain parameters. Gandhi could move Britain, because the British were already dedicated to the idea of fair play, the rule of law and equity. Against Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or most of the tyrants of history, non-violent tactics are not usually successful. The fellow who so courageously stood in front of the PLA tank in Tien an Min Square later disappeared; anyone want to bet on where he ended up? Passive is even less effective and ends up in buchenwald.

Sometimes no strategy, nor tactic can even guarantee survival. The American Indians had no chance whatsoever of denying their hunting grounds to Europeans. Superior military doctrine and arms made it virtually impossible for any aboriginal people to withstand the colonial expansion of European nations during the 16th through late 19th centuries. If I was an Apache in the 19th century, I would have been a willing member of Geronimo's band even though no one could expect even fleeting victory. Islamic fundamentalists may well believe that Western materialist culture and values demands active resistance. Those who lead terrorist organizations may be more nihilist than Islamic, but they certainly know how to slant their propaganda to mobilize the apolitical masses of Southwestern Asia.

That religious tint given to terrorist organizations is clear in the apparent alignment of the indigenous population of Southeast Asia. The terrorists have initiated open, if covert and irregular, warfare against Western Civilization ... most notably the United States, by making their effort one of religion. That isn't necessarily so, but they have been reasonably successful at framing the issues that way in the Muslim world.

Within the United States there has been a Christian fundamentalist movement going back to the very beginnings of the country. During the 20th century that movement was overshadowed by a materialistic movement stressing progressive humanistic values and materialism. Individual choice and thought came to challenge the religious doctrines that existed in the heartland of the country. However, there has in recent years been a resurgence of Christian fundamentalism here. Often that movement has been allied with conservative politics, but they are not necessarily the same. I believe that the Christian fundamentalist are an important voting block, but that conservative policies have not gone overboard in catering to them. Constitutional separation of church and state remains strong in this country. The President's religious faith certainly plays well to the fundamentalists.

As you know, I have very low opinion of the Abrahamic faiths. They are, in my opinion, the root cause of more suffering than almost any other single factor in our social structure. Abrahamic faiths are like a disease that has plagued humanity for a long, long time. They are a threat to all other religions, and the justification for far too much bloodshed. A pest on them all. Unfortunately, they aren't going to go away. The struggle between the three major branches of that damned religion underlie the political unrest throughout the world today, and no matter how much we hate that we are saddled with it.

Come on up and visit us again, my friend.

Asherman, your knowledge is needed in the Buddhist Dilemma thread in the Philosophy section.

look at the shaolin monks they are buddhists of the zen variety but they kick ass
some say samurai were buddhist too
i wouldnt argue with them and tell them they were not buddhists
whereas at the other end of the buddhist spectrum you got the tibetans who dont want to hurt anything
this is an observation not a judgement

Re: If everyone is non-violent, will Hitler types take over?


The logical fallacy here is that if almost everyone is non-violent, there would be few people that a Hitler could convert, and ruling a world of very few people just isn't challenging enough, even for a madman.

Col Man makes a good point as well, regarding Shaolin monks. Buddhist martial arts work on the principle of using your enemy's negative energy against them. Shaolin Kung Fu and Tai Chi Chuan are two good popular examples. It isn't so much about the ass-kicking as it is about the intent in the mind, which is essentially non-violent. Even complete pacifists realize the value of defensive resistance.

Well said, Cav.