“Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'.”
Analysis
In this quote by George Orwell, the author argues that pacifism is supportive of fascism, as it hampers the war efforts of one side, thereby aiding the other side. Orwell emphasizes the idea that in times of war, neutrality is not possible, and not taking a stance is equivalent to siding with the enemy. This quote suggests that individuals have a moral obligation to actively support the war effort against fascism, rather than passively standing by. Orwell's words call into question the ethics of pacifism and the nuanced complexities of war.
The Relevance of Pacifism in Modern Times
George Orwell's statement about pacifism being objectively pro-fascist still holds relevance in today's society. In a world filled with conflicts and power struggles, the choice to remain neutral or refuse to take action can inadvertently support oppressive regimes or ideologies. This quote serves as a reminder that inaction can have consequences, and neutrality is not always a viable option in the face of injustice.
Examples of Usage:
In his writing, George Orwell touched upon the idea that pacifism can inadvertently support fascism. Here is a quote from him that exemplifies this view:
“Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'.”
Reflection Questions
Reflecting on the quote by George Orwell, consider the following questions:
- Do you agree with Orwell's assertion that pacifism is objectively pro-fascist? Why or why not?
- How do you think the concept of neutrality in times of conflict plays into Orwell's argument?
- Can you think of any examples in history where remaining neutral or pacifistic may have inadvertently benefitted one side over the other?
- In today's geopolitical climate, do you believe there are instances where pacifism could be considered detrimental in the face of rising authoritarianism or fascism?
- How might individuals balance their beliefs in non-violence with the need to take a stand against oppressive regimes or ideologies?
Similar quotes
“A prince must not have any other object nor any other thought… but war, its institutions, and its discipline; because that is the only art befitting one who commands.”
“Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one.”
“The fact that in the twentieth century a greater proportion of the people in the world could communicate with one another, using English or just a few other languages, appears not to have stopped any wars, nor to have reduced the frequency with which wars have broken out, nor to have made the wars that have broken out less brutal. In fact, several murderous wars have been fought recently among people who speak 'the same language' in real terms.”
“War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.”
“We know that the war against intelligence is always waged in the name of common sense.”